Yeah. In being full of trash he's known for. I feel pity for america. Things were going better and now trump came to ruin it. Wonder how many decades it takes to fix damage he does. Maybe more than my lifetime even if i live longer than average
Trying to find the transcript... twittah is blowing up now...
"We will eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth."
Also loving that the first speaker to follow his speech is a rabbi.
My mom would love that. She also has one overriding issue whose big button blots out all reasonable concerns when pushed. And her issue is also Israel. Certain fundraisers have cottoned onto that and lead her around like a bull with a ring in its nose. Must be comforting not to have to weigh dozens of important, often conflicting concerns when making a decision.
Yeah. In being full of trash he's known for. I feel pity for america. Things were going better and now trump came to ruin it. Wonder how many decades it takes to fix damage he does. Maybe more than my lifetime even if i live longer than average
Please, stop being hateful. Let him try at least.
All this european Trump bashing is stupid
Yeah. In being full of trash he's known for. I feel pity for america. Things were going better and now trump came to ruin it. Wonder how many decades it takes to fix damage he does. Maybe more than my lifetime even if i live longer than average
Please, stop being hateful. Let him try at least.
All this european Trump bashing is stupid
Please, stop being hateful. Let him try at least.
All this european Trump bashing is stupid
Agreed, and inappropriate for this forum.
How so? A good portion of his platform was built on hate, we're clearly following the President's example now.
You have to accept his terrible cabinet picks and policies. You should applaud his un-adult behavior as the leader of America. You should follow his example when it comes to his poor business decisions and dealings.
Yes, but we did recently get a lock on this thread and some angry words from the Admins about how toxic the thread had become. In that light, I don't think it's asking too much to avoid the toxic stuff even as we continue to post our thoughts and concerns.
Please, stop being hateful. Let him try at least.
All this european Trump bashing is stupid
Agreed, and inappropriate for this forum.
How so? A good portion of his platform was built on hate, we're clearly following the President's example now.
Rule #1 would like to have a word with you.
Besides you're all just jealous that our First Lady is prettier than your First Lady, and that our President is oranger than yours (ok N. Ireland's orange Party guys might disagree).
d-usa wrote: I think the thread lock was more pronoun related, and less "I like/don't like Trump" related.
Anti-Trump passion is still not a valid reason for expressing one's opinion in an impolite manner. This is Yakface's site, not the comments section of the New York Times and we should respect that.
Prestor Jon wrote: Why do we need the Feds to enforce a NY state sales tax? If NY wants to reduce cigarette smuggling they can stop having punitive sin taxes.
Because telling the states they can set their own policy, and then telling them not to complain that people are violating their policy is a bit hypocritical. A country built of a bunch of municipalities with no obligations to one another quickly ceases to be a country. I don't understand why you're jumping to the conclusion that I expect all states to be the same, or that I want some kind of overarching conformity on everything. Setting basic policy standards can be as simple as "all gun manufacturers must include a safety in their design", or as detailed as "vodka is an alcohol with a proof of x to y fermented in manner z from ingredients a, b, and c and bottled as d."
Let's say someone sells a batch of beer and it turns out it contains rat poison. People die in the state of Indiana, but the beer is made and sold in Nevada and distributed from there. Indiana can't just investigate a beer maker in Nevada. Now, Nevada can investigate the crime (and find that the manufacturer was reckless) but Nevada courts can't bring charges for deaths in other states and Indiana can't charge the manufacturer for selling bad goods in Nevada. The only thing Nevada can do is charge for violating state law and and reckless endangerment. And of course, what about the people who died in California, Utah, and Idaho, and the money the business was funneling to New Jersey mob? The only body that can actual handle all of that practically and Constitutionally is the Federal government. Crimes cross state lines, and Constitutionally that's the Federal government's job.
The states are not intrinsically better at everything at all levels, and just because the states can handle a given regulatory challenge doesn't mean they have no need for a federal regulator or investigative arm. Especially in a global economic environment where money and goods travel massive distances, it's kind of absurd to expect the state of Florida be be able to fulfill all the needs that will ever exist or even exist now on any issue, let alone something like alcohol or tobacco. Especially since these are goods that tend to be grown in one place, processed in another, and then manufactured into a consumer good in dozens of other places before shipping to markets all over the country and these steps can take place in completely different states.
NY state tax policy not a concern for the FBI.
I never said it was something for the FBI to do.
We tried to control alcohol at the federal level during prohibition and it failed.
I don't think its that we tried to control it at a federal level so much that we tried to ban it period. That was just doomed to fail (not that we learned any lessons from the experience).
Apologies for making assumptions about your argument. In the context of needing a Federal agency like the ATF to enforce Federal laws regarding tobacco and cigarettes I was trying to argue that a lot of that enforcement doesn't need to be done on a Federal level. Determining what is and isn't an alcohol beverage or cigarette, how it can be manufactured, ingredients, labelling etc. can be done by the FDA just like they do with other consumable products. Crimes that cross state lines do fall under Federal jurisdiction but I thought your previous example of cigarette smuggling was faulty. Buying cigarettes in Georgia in compliance with state laws isn't a Federal crime and neither is transporting those cigarettes into NY state. Now once you're in NY state selling those cigarettes you bought in GA without collecting the appropriate NY state sales tax on them and remitting that tax to the NY state govt is a crime but it's a state crime not a Federal one. It's also an unintended consequence of NY state's tax policy.
If people in Indiana were getting poisoned by a specific brand or batch of beer then that would be investigated by local and state authorities/health officials and then likely forwarded to the CDC since that's how similar things like food poisoning outbreaks are dealt with. If the poisoning involved interstate commerce or otherwise falls under Federal jurisdiction then those responsible would face Federal prosecution but we could still greatly downsize the ATF and it's role in Federal enforcement of alcohol and tobacco without sacrificing public safety.
If you want Federal enforcement over something then you need to establish Federal authority over it and that's going to require Federal laws that are necessarily going to be one size fits all laws that require conformity amongst the states. The ATF isn't enforcing state laws on alcohol only Federal ones so the more enforcement powers they have and the more enforcement actions they undertake the more conformity we get between states and the point of Federal law enforcement is to deal with crimes that the states are poorly equipped to deal with not to enact conformity amongst the states so Federal enforcement should be limited to that narrow scope. I'm sorry if that point wasn't clear I probably jumped ahead with the conclusion too much.
Truly, Trump needs a new pronoun, the best pronoun. Kablhe! wants people to refer to kablim! uniquely, fitting the stupenditudinousness of kabliszl! disctinctividuality.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: I got nothing against Trump, but his speech was just bad. The man just isn't good with speeching. He could have done a lot better.
That's fine. I didn't listen to it because I was at work so I can't speak to the quality or the content. I'm sure I'll be able to get the gist from news articles later today.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: I got nothing against Trump, but his speech was just bad. The man just isn't good with speeching. He could have done a lot better.
What he lacks in structure and finesse, he makes up for in saying what you want to hear, if you want to hear what he's saying.
Please, stop being hateful. Let him try at least.
All this european Trump bashing is stupid
Agreed, and inappropriate for this forum.
How so? A good portion of his platform was built on hate, we're clearly following the President's example now.
Rule #1 would like to have a word with you.
Besides you're all just jealous that our First Lady is prettier than your First Lady, and that our President is oranger than yours (ok N. Ireland's orange Party guys might disagree).
Trump isnt a poster on this forum, rule # 1 doesnt apply to us calling him a scumbag when hes the topic of political conversation
Speaking of, who's ready for the official @POTUS twitter to be Trumped?
godardc wrote: Please, stop being hateful. Let him try at least.
All this european Trump bashing is stupid
'
He's already SHOWN to be totally disqualified at the job. His policies are already shown to be trash. I judge him by his actions. They are utter and complete disaster. Only ones in the world who have chance of escaping his effect in better or at least same shape are filthy rich white christians.
Do you need to be shot in brain to know it's bad?
You could get better president by grabbing random 5 year old kid from the street and putting him to the job.
A billionaire reality TV show host and real estate developer, who has never shown any interest in anybody but himself and his bottom line, and who now has appointed the wealthiest cabinet in U.S. history, is going to "return the country to the people". I await this with the most eager of bated breath.
GDP
Budget Deficit/Surplus
Total Debt
Amount of Federal Spending
Federal Tax Rate
Trade Balance
Unemployment Rate
Underemployment Rate
# of soldiers killed
# of drone strikes
# of Nobel Prizes
# of executive orders
# of uninsured
Cost of Insurance (although that one would be hard, because it is ripe for number games)
# of manufacturing jobs
Inflation
Productivity-Pay Gap
Median Household Income
SNAP Participation
Medicaid Participation
# of Illegal Immigrants
# of Deportations
I think I'll try to do some homework tonight and find numbers for first and last year of the last few Presidents, and then start tracking Trump.
Great speech on the otherhand. I love the nationalism tone it had
With nationalism being one of the chief reasons for the first World War and god knows how many other conflicts, I disagree. Nationalism is not a good thing, and it's not the same as merely loving your country.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Trump isnt a poster on this forum, rule # 1 doesnt apply to us calling him a scumbag when hes the topic of political conversation.
I suggest you take a few moments and refresh yourself about the rules of decorum Yakface set up for this site.
yakface wrote: HOWEVER, please be aware that all of the other normal rules for the site apply. In particular that means you still need to be polite and friendly, even when discussing such hot topics as politics and religion.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: I got nothing against Trump, but his speech was just bad. The man just isn't good with speeching. He could have done a lot better.
What he lacks in structure and finesse, he makes up for in saying what you want to hear, if you want to hear what he's saying.
Sadly a lot of the thing he said aren't great either. He tends to overreact an say what the people want to hear, but he might have said a lot of things he will not be able to realize and will get a lot of backlash
He was talking about "all" Americans but he only seemed to talk about his own voters. He should have reached out to different voters to at least in his speech imho..
WrentheFaceless wrote: Trump isnt a poster on this forum, rule # 1 doesnt apply to us calling him a scumbag when hes the topic of political conversation.
I suggest you take a few moments and refresh yourself about the rules of decorum Yakface set up for this site.
yakface wrote: HOWEVER, please be aware that all of the other normal rules for the site apply. In particular that means you still need to be polite and friendly, even when discussing such hot topics as politics and religion.
Speaking of, who's ready for the official @POTUS twitter to be Trumped?
Apparently he will not be using it and will continue to use his existing account.
Nobody should be surprised that he's chosen to keep using the twitter feed branded with his name instead of the one that uses his prestigious but generic job title.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's not public education that I'm opposed to. It's the Federal government being involved in it that I have a problem with.
I just think it's a very funny piece of trivia
There's a similar one with the railroads; Mid 18th century Republicans were real big on expanding the railroad, so railroads got huge amounts of public money to make more railroads, and continued to get massive subsidies up until WWII when the Republicans decided Highways were better and then blasted the railroads for wasting public funds for years and asked why the Federal government was spending so much money on corporate welfare (while proposing huge subsidies and tax breaks for the fledgling trucking industry) XD
Yep, good old politics. Even within the powers and responsibilities delegated to the Federal government, it has a bad tendency to rear it's ugly head.
The Feds have a responsibility to maintain highways and rail lines in the interests if Interstate Commerce. Not hand out money to big corporations, other than to contract them to maintain said highways and railroads if needed.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
Please elaborate.
Where does the rubber grind the road with federal education standards?
1. I'm big on the founding concept of "federalism" (the division of power between the States and Federal levels of government).
2. As for the rest, Prestor Jon pretty much echos my sentiments on accountability.
WrentheFaceless wrote: True, but I'm calling the Overripe Orange in Chief names, no one else.
Indeed.
That said if one is trying to converse with others then it's probably worth sometimes not calling him/her/whoever X/Y/Z a name or insulting them as that is unlikely to really help any debate along or encourage others to engage with you either.
Can you him a scumbag/similar ? Yes -- of course.
But -- and this is a general point and not aimed solely at you but forum members in general --- if one is only chipping to post insults or slag off X/Y Z then there's a good chance you're not really adding anything to a conversation.
I understand people will & do get a bit carried away or swept along -- and we try to make allowances for that.
..People, at least try and be clever about what you say.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Trump isnt a poster on this forum, rule # 1 doesnt apply to us calling him a scumbag when hes the topic of political conversation.
I suggest you take a few moments and refresh yourself about the rules of decorum Yakface set up for this site.
yakface wrote: HOWEVER, please be aware that all of the other normal rules for the site apply. In particular that means you still need to be polite and friendly, even when discussing such hot topics as politics and religion.
Once again trump is not a poster so the sites rules do not apply to him
Apparently the Department of Energy has updated their rules to effectively outlaw the three-way bulb. This doesn't affect me because I've been swapping out all my existing bulbs for LEDs but I remember those adjustable lamps we used to have when I was younger.
So, are any of you affected by this? Are you going to march in the streets because your lamps aren't fully functional any more? Will you write the President and demand he make your light bulbs great again? ;P
WrentheFaceless wrote: Trump isnt a poster on this forum, rule # 1 doesnt apply to us calling him a scumbag when hes the topic of political conversation.
I suggest you take a few moments and refresh yourself about the rules of decorum Yakface set up for this site.
yakface wrote: HOWEVER, please be aware that all of the other normal rules for the site apply. In particular that means you still need to be polite and friendly, even when discussing such hot topics as politics and religion.
Once again trump is not a poster so the sites rules do not apply to him
Neither is Inmate Manning, but make sure you use the correct gender pronouns for that deeply troubled individual.
Breotan wrote: Apparently the Department of Energy has updated their rules to effectively outlaw the three-way bulb. This doesn't affect me because I've been swapping out all my existing bulbs for LEDs but I remember those adjustable lamps we used to have when I was younger.
So, are any of you affected by this? Are you going to march in the streets because your lamps aren't fully functional any more? Will you write the President and demand he make your light bulbs great again? ;P
This is the sort of micromanagement I am talking about.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
The States are "closer" (for want of a better term) to the voting, taxpaying public than the Federal government , thus it's easier to call them into account for their nonsense. Unlike Washington D.C., which involves living with screw jobs until the next election cycle and HOPE (key word here) that people will be voted in that will undo (or lessen the impact of) said screw job(s). Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. At least on the State level, we can grill the hell out of the politicos and their appointed cronies with some serious heat. The State reps have to go home sometime when the legislatures are not in session. That means having to face their constituencies personally.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: I got nothing against Trump, but his speech was just bad. The man just isn't good with speeching. He could have done a lot better.
He doesn't seem comfortable reading prepared material...he kind of clams up.
Speaking of, who's ready for the official @POTUS twitter to be Trumped?
Apparently he will not be using it and will continue to use his existing account.
Nobody should be surprised that he's chosen to keep using the twitter feed branded with his name instead of the one that uses his prestigious but generic job title.
Well, there is @POTUS, which has already been changed from Obama to Trump, and which was used by Obama for "official" tweets. And even Obama still had @Potus44 for more "personal" tweets, and @BarackObama for "professional" tweets.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's always been like this every since the Federal government decided to stick it's nasty paws into what is essentially a State and local matter (education), playing fast and loose with the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. It's mostly just a means for cynical/greedy politicians to score brownie points with voters during Federal elections.
There have been calls to get the Feds out of the education business since the 1980's. And in my view, it's long overdue.
Good to know you hate children in poorer states then.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
The States are "closer" (for want of a better term) to the voting, taxpaying public than the Federal government , thus it's easier to call them into account for their nonsense. Unlike Washington D.C., which involves living with screw jobs until the next election cycle and HOPE (key word here) that people will be voted in that will undo (or lessen the impact of) said screw job(s). Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. At least on the State level, we can grill the hell out of the politicos and their appointed cronies with some serious heat. The State reps have to go home sometime when the legislatures are not in session. That means having to face their constituencies personally.
one would think, but there are lots of examples of states not having their gak together or doing actively counterproductive things, everything behind Brown vs Board of Education being a prime example.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's always been like this every since the Federal government decided to stick it's nasty paws into what is essentially a State and local matter (education), playing fast and loose with the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. It's mostly just a means for cynical/greedy politicians to score brownie points with voters during Federal elections.
There have been calls to get the Feds out of the education business since the 1980's. And in my view, it's long overdue.
Good to know you hate children in poorer states then.
Not an argument. And I'm not going to bite.
Considering that is exactly what Kansas has done, no it is an argument. Do you think it is right for children to go to school only 3 days a week while the rest are going to 5? Or should they just start preparing to work low wage jobs or take over the family farm?
So, as a non-American, this is my interpretation of Trump's speech.
Spoiler:
An isolationist, protectionist America it is then.
I suppose, looking on the bright side... It might help the UK in the Brexit negotiations if Europe knows they can no longer depend on America for, well pretty much anything, really.
Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: thank you.
We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.
Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come.
We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.
Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.
Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.
January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now.
You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.
Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.
These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.
But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.
This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
We are one nation – and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.
The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.
For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry;
Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military;
We've defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own;
And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.
We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.
One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.
The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.
But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.
We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.
From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.
From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.
Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.
We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.
I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down.
America will start winning again, winning like never before.
We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.
We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.
We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.
We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.
We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.
We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.
At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.
When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.
The Bible tells us, “how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”
We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.
When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.
There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected.
We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.
Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.
In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.
We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.
The time for empty talk is over.
Now arrives the hour of action.
Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.
We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.
We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.
A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.
It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.
And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.
So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:
You will never be ignored again.
Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.
Together, We Will Make America Strong Again.
We Will Make America Wealthy Again.
We Will Make America Proud Again.
We Will Make America Safe Again.
And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God Bless You, And God Bless America.
"When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice." That's powerful... let's hold him to that... cool?
Great speech on the otherhand. I love the nationalism tone it had
With nationalism being one of the chief reasons for the first World War and god knows how many other conflicts, I disagree. Nationalism is not a good thing, and it's not the same as merely loving your country.
Firstly, I think it was a great speech, but everyone have its opinion, and I'm ok with this. It was exactly what I wanted to hear.
Then: I do think the lack of nationalism is what has gotten us where we are now, and its responsible for a lot of troubles of today.
According to MSN.com, "The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already underway."
Did liberals learn nothing from the failed Republican effort to impeach President Clinton? You can't bring petty stuff like this against a President when his party controls the Senate. The Republicans got punished by the voters when they tried this stunt and it will backfire if the Democrats try it now.
You want the President (any President) impeached? You better have something serious and you better be able to prove it. Anything less and the voters will punish you for grandstanding.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
The States are "closer" (for want of a better term) to the voting, taxpaying public than the Federal government , thus it's easier to call them into account for their nonsense. Unlike Washington D.C., which involves living with screw jobs until the next election cycle and HOPE (key word here) that people will be voted in that will undo (or lessen the impact of) said screw job(s). Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. At least on the State level, we can grill the hell out of the politicos and their appointed cronies with some serious heat. The State reps have to go home sometime when the legislatures are not in session. That means having to face their constituencies personally.
one would think, but there are lots of examples of states not having their gak together or doing actively counterproductive things, everything behind Brown vs Board of Education being a prime example.
They are definitely not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, they are also masters of the screw job.
With the example you cited, some forget that it was the U.S. Supreme Court that originally ruled that segregation was acceptable under the 10th and 14th Amendments, as long as it was "separate but equal". And segregation lasted so long on the State level because the constituency (the white voters, at least, who were in the majority) of various jurisdictions tended to either support it, or didn't care either way. They didn't see no reason to change things, or didn't care to push against it. If there is one thing I despise in the political landscape, it's apathy.
So, it took a different Supreme Court (the Marshall Court) to rule on it again in the 1950s, and found it was in violation of the 14th Amendment, and rightly so as long as the 14th continues to exist. But that doesn't mean that the Feds have the right to trample all over federalism when it suits them. Only when it's within it's authority to do so (as was the case in Brown versus Board of Education).
Vaktathi wrote: Given that the UK seems to be on a similar trajectory with the Brexit vote, it should be scaring us all
Kind of, but without going too off-topic. While Brexit was certainly a nationalistic/popularistic movement, ala Trump, so far, at least, the Trump-like personalities in British politics have been given relatively short shrift.
Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: thank you.
We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.
Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come.
We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.
Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.
Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.
January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now.
You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.
Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.
These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.
But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.
This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
We are one nation – and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.
The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.
For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry;
Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military;
We've defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own;
And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.
We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.
One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.
The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.
But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.
We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.
From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.
From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.
Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.
We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.
I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down.
America will start winning again, winning like never before.
We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.
We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.
We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.
We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.
We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.
We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.
At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.
When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.
The Bible tells us, “how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”
We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.
When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.
There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected.
We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.
Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.
In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.
We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.
The time for empty talk is over.
Now arrives the hour of action.
Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.
We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.
We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.
A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.
It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.
And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.
So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:
You will never be ignored again.
Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.
Together, We Will Make America Strong Again.
We Will Make America Wealthy Again.
We Will Make America Proud Again.
We Will Make America Safe Again.
And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God Bless You, And God Bless America.
"When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice." That's powerful... let's hold him to that... cool?
I like it. I will do my part to make America Fatter Again!
Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: thank you.
We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.
Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come.
We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.
Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.
Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.
January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now.
You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.
Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.
These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.
But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.
This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
We are one nation – and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.
The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.
For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry;
Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military;
We've defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own;
And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.
We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.
One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.
The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.
But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.
We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.
From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.
From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.
Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.
We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.
I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down.
America will start winning again, winning like never before.
We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.
We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.
We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.
We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.
We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.
We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.
At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.
When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.
The Bible tells us, “how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”
We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.
When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.
There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected.
We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.
Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.
In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.
We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.
The time for empty talk is over.
Now arrives the hour of action.
Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.
We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.
We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.
A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.
It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.
And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.
So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:
You will never be ignored again.
Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.
Together, We Will Make America Strong Again.
We Will Make America Wealthy Again.
We Will Make America Proud Again.
We Will Make America Safe Again.
And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God Bless You, And God Bless America.
"When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice." That's powerful... let's hold him to that... cool?
I'm all on board for holding him to this.
I'm just stunned by the overwhelming wall of irony given his leading roll in creating all of the exact things he is bemoaning. Having his clothing line made overseas, stiffing local US suppliers and creating hellish situations for tenants of his properties, avoiding payment of taxes, getting gigantic contracts handed to him on a silver platter to build his empire because of daddys connections, etc ad nauseum.
Vaktathi wrote: Given that the UK seems to be on a similar trajectory with the Brexit vote, it should be scaring us all
Kind of, but without going too off-topic. While Brexit was certainly a nationalistic/popularistic movement, ala Trump, so far, at least, the Trump-like personalities in British politics have been given relatively short shrift.
So far.
that might be fair, but Johnson and Nigel arent too far out in the wings either
Breotan wrote: According to MSN.com, "The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already underway."
Did liberals learn nothing from the failed Republican effort to impeach President Clinton?
Who says it's only the liberals involved in this
You can't bring petty stuff like this against a President when his party controls the Senate. The Republicans got punished by the voters when they tried this stunt and it will backfire if the Democrats try it now.
They currently gained control of the House, the Senate, the White House, and SCOTUS. What a punishment.
After impeaching Clinton they got the House, the Senate, and the White House. What a punishment.
You want the President (any President) impeached? You better have something serious and you better be able to prove it. Anything less and the voters will punish you for grandstanding.
godardc wrote: Please, stop being hateful. Let him try at least.
All this european Trump bashing is stupid
'
He's already SHOWN to be totally disqualified at the job. His policies are already shown to be trash. I judge him by his actions. They are utter and complete disaster. Only ones in the world who have chance of escaping his effect in better or at least same shape are filthy rich white christians.
Do you need to be shot in brain to know it's bad?
You could get better president by grabbing random 5 year old kid from the street and putting him to the job.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's always been like this every since the Federal government decided to stick it's nasty paws into what is essentially a State and local matter (education), playing fast and loose with the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. It's mostly just a means for cynical/greedy politicians to score brownie points with voters during Federal elections.
There have been calls to get the Feds out of the education business since the 1980's. And in my view, it's long overdue.
Good to know you hate children in poorer states then.
Not an argument. And I'm not going to bite.
Considering that is exactly what Kansas has done, no it is an argument. Do you think it is right for children to go to school only 3 days a week while the rest are going to 5? Or should they just start preparing to work low wage jobs or take over the family farm?
If you are talking about the segregation era, see my previous post.
If you are talking about the current era, if that's what is being done in Kansas, then that it a matter of parental choice and State law. And if that is an issue, then it needs to be fixed on the State level. The Feds need to stay the hell out of it.
Breotan wrote: Apparently the Department of Energy has updated their rules to effectively outlaw the three-way bulb. This doesn't affect me because I've been swapping out all my existing bulbs for LEDs but I remember those adjustable lamps we used to have when I was younger.
So, are any of you affected by this? Are you going to march in the streets because your lamps aren't fully functional any more? Will you write the President and demand he make your light bulbs great again? ;P
So now I have to make a permanent choice between reading light and mood lighting? Too far!!
What is the reason given for banning them? In my experience, these bulbs tended to break or burn out really quickly and always somehow ended up in the normal trash and not the hazardous waste disposal that no one ever told me they were supposed to go in I swear.
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
I like how he's actually trying to bring everyone together, 'tis a nice change of pace.
Now that he is officially president, I want to see things getting done, immediately. No waiting, no honeymoon period, straight to work. No more deadlock.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
The States are "closer" (for want of a better term) to the voting, taxpaying public than the Federal government , thus it's easier to call them into account for their nonsense. Unlike Washington D.C., which involves living with screw jobs until the next election cycle and HOPE (key word here) that people will be voted in that will undo (or lessen the impact of) said screw job(s). Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. At least on the State level, we can grill the hell out of the politicos and their appointed cronies with some serious heat. The State reps have to go home sometime when the legislatures are not in session. That means having to face their constituencies personally.
one would think, but there are lots of examples of states not having their gak together or doing actively counterproductive things, everything behind Brown vs Board of Education being a prime example.
They are definitely not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, they are also masters of the screw job.
With the example you cited, some forget that it was the U.S. Supreme Court that originally ruled that segregation was acceptable under the 10th and 14th Amendments, as long as it was "separate but equal".
Aye, but even under that the states actively went out of their way to ensure facilities, access, and quality of education were never even remotely equal, which is what ultimately invited Federal intervention.
But that doesn't mean that the Feds have the right to trample all over federalism when it suits them. Only when it's within it's authority to do so (as was the case in Brown versus Board of Education).
that may be fair, but I think the issue is that, with 50 distinct states and an increasingly interconnected world, there are compelling interests to ensure common stanadards and practices and goals and to ensure all states are adhering to those standards.
I like how he's actually trying to bring everyone together, 'tis a nice change of pace.
Now that he is officially president, I want to see things getting done, immediately. No waiting, no honeymoon period, straight to work. No more deadlock.
jasper76 wrote: I get the eerie feeling that all of this isolationism is going to end up with me paying $50 for a tube of toothpaste.
But you will earn a lot more, so...
Lol. That's not what protectionism does at all. Protectionism hurts everybody, workers and businesses. There's a reason nobody but the fringes of both parties advocate for it. I'm not so concerned as Congress is still controlled by run-of-the mill Republicans. So it won't be great for workers and consumers, but at least they won't put any of the bad gak into law (i.e. stuff that hurts businesses).
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
I think it's unusual.. but FDR and JFK had military parades...
Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
If the goal is to equalize funding for all schools why do the Feds tie funding to performance? Giving extra money to schools that are already successful and withholding funding from schools that are struggling or failing seems to be the opposite of equalizing schools, rich get richer poor get worse.
Because the people who proposed, wrote, and passed that policy wanted to sabotage public education and then complain about how it doesn't work. It was impressive in itself with a bipartisan collection of Congressmen managed to quietly get rid of that stupid law, but indeed they then just dumped the problem down a level and didn't do anything to rectify the damage done. Much of the education policy history of the US os defined by being ignored on one side and purposefully sabotaged on the other.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Prestor, the whole point of federal education standards is to ideally keep every state on the same page. I don't know if you have kids or not or if you ever plan to move to another state, but if I had a kid in, say,, fifth grade, and we moved to another state, federal standards ensure he would roughly have the same knowledge as fifth graders in the new state, rather than being significantly ahead or behind.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's always been like this every since the Federal government decided to stick it's nasty paws into what is essentially a State and local matter (education), playing fast and loose with the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. It's mostly just a means for cynical/greedy politicians to score brownie points with voters during Federal elections.
There have been calls to get the Feds out of the education business since the 1980's. And in my view, it's long overdue.
Good to know you hate children in poorer states then.
@Hats
I agree with you on the horribleness of No Child Left Behind, that was truly awful legislation. It embodied the worst aspects of politics, doing something to help I re-election campaigns, I helped make schools accountable]! while ignoring the harm it caused the children who were students in the failing schools that the legislation was supposed to be helping.
@Tannhauser
I do have kids in school. I'm not opposed to having Federal standards. If the Federal Dept of Ed wants to determine what an appropriate reading level is for each grade and things of that nature I'm ok with it. What I don't approve of is the Federal govt tying funding to test scores because then the Feds are punishing the underperforming students by withholding funds from them. The Feds can have standards but since public schools are run by the states the only way for the Feds to get compliance with Federal education standards they have to tie compliance to Federal funding. That's when things get messy because then you have the Feds forcing state and local govts to conform to the curriculum and methodology that the Feds want or get less or no money. State and local govts are the ones that run the schools, they decide on school calendars, the hiring and firing of faculty, curriculum choices, methodology etc. it's the states that take over failing schools and try to reform them not the Feds. The Feds only administer Federal funding, everything else is done by the states, the Feds don't take responsibility for educating any kids just for contributing money to schools. Since the Feds just kick in money I'd rather see them do it with block grants or under a system that equalizing all public schools to a set minimum of money spent per pupil instead of rewarding good schools and penalizing bad ones. The Every Student Succeeds Act will be an improvement but it doesn't kick in for a few more years and Congress could make it worse or repeal it anytime.
One of our kid is in 2nd grade. He's already getting worksheets to do that are test prep for the essay questions in the End of Grade test for 3rd grade. This is happening because last year the 3rd grade EoG scores weren't as high as the school wants them to be so they are starting test prep for it in 2nd grade now. So instead of focusing on teaching our son the fundamentals of reading comprehension and writing so that he is prepared for 3rd grade his teacher has to spend time teaching to a test that he won't take until the end of next year. Yes I want schools to have educational standards that they need to meet but when accountability to those standards means score well on tests or get your budget cut it interferes with how schools operate. How schools are run and what happens in the classroom should primarily be a matter of local control. The school faculty, local school board, parents are all much more well informed with what's happening in the classroom and how students are doing than Federal bureaucrats in DC so those people in DC shouldn't be determining how teacher run their classrooms.
@tneva
The Federal Dept of Ed doesn't award money to states based on state tax revenues or state education spending per student levels. The Feds aren't currently sending the state of Mississippi extra money so they can spend as much money per student as NY state. The Federal money isn't awarded under a system designed to balance out economic inequalities. The system is designed to award money based upon compliance with Federal requirements. Run your schools the way the Feds want and they'll give you money but if you run them a different way you get none. That system doesn't emphasize resolving inequities or helping students in need it emphasizes Federal control over a State service.
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Well considering there will be more protesters than actually supporters of trump in DC this weekend that makes sense
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
So, according to you, military are fascist. I'm certain you military forces will be happy knowing people they defend hate them. You do know that the military defend democracy, too ?
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
So, according to you, military are fascist. I'm certain you military forces will be happy knowing people they defend hate them. You do know that the military defend democracy, too ?
If you think that I feel sorry for you, maybe you should brush up on your own history when these types of military parades were common in paris in the early 40s
So, according to you, military are fascist. I'm certain you military forces will be happy knowing people they defend hate them. You do know that the military defend democracy, too ?
Nobody said that the Military was fascist, thats a rather silly conclusion to jump to.
However, self aggrandizing displays of military power upon assumption of power is a pretty typical hallmark of totalitarianism.
EDIT: as others have noted, the story should be taken very sceptically however, though also wouldnt be out of character for Trump.
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
I'm skeptical of believing that a member of Trump's inauguration team felt the need to call up HuffPo and anonymously tell them that Trump wanted a "North Korea-style" military parade. It also isn't a step closer to anything because even if it were true it didn't actually happen and events that didn't transpire can't affect us.
Once again trump is not a poster so the sites rules do not apply to him
Neither is Inmate Manning, but make sure you use the correct gender pronouns for that deeply troubled individual.
The problem was that mis-pronouning Manning was not a personal insult, but more akin to using a racial slur since it showed contempt for the idea of transitioning, as opposed to the individual. Calling Manning a crazy, ugly, pathetic loser of a hamster-faced weasel would be acceptable where calling her a eunuch was not.
Just like saying Trump is a doritodouche is aimed just at him, but calling him Whitey von Cracker shouldn't be.
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
I'm skeptical of believing that a member of Trump's inauguration team felt the need to call up HuffPo and anonymously tell them that Trump wanted a "North Korea-style" military parade. It also isn't a step closer to anything because even if it were true it didn't actually happen and events that didn't transpire can't affect us.
I'm going to have to second that. HuffPost has done nothing but throw insults at the Trump team since they start (not even news, literally just insult pieces.) There is no reason that a member of the Trump team would call it a "North Korean" or "Red Square" style parade, much less contact the absolute least friendly news organization about it.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
Prestor Jon wrote: It also isn't a step closer to anything because even if it were true it didn't actually happen and events that didn't transpire can't affect us.
Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean the thought and consideration of can't and won't have an affect.
See: Nuclear holocaust, as an extreme example.
This is in the same category as using Japanese Internment Camps as possible justifications for a Muslim Registry. The fact that these kinds of considerations are being brought up at all, especially by the now-President, should be noted.
And know where does it say that the source is a part of Trump's inauguration team, but was just involved with the inauguration itself. For all we know, it could have been an outgoing Obama staffer.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
Yeah! Especially after Obama ran that awful, insulting, dividing campaign that ended with him losing the popular vote and taking over the country with a historically low popularity rating... oh... wait a minute.
Of course, not that it excuses the actions of these people. If anything, they should be condemned for raising tensions for the hopefully-peaceful march tomorrow.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
You seem to forget the strawmen of obama being lynched and burned. So I wouldn't talk
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
You seem to forget the strawmen of obama being lynched and burned. So I wouldn't talk
After Obama's inauguration? Yep... if true, I did forget that... can you provide a source?
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
I'm skeptical of believing that a member of Trump's inauguration team felt the need to call up HuffPo and anonymously tell them that Trump wanted a "North Korea-style" military parade. It also isn't a step closer to anything because even if it were true it didn't actually happen and events that didn't transpire can't affect us.
I'm going to have to second that. HuffPost has done nothing but throw insults at the Trump team since they start (not even news, literally just insult pieces.) There is no reason that a member of the Trump team would call it a "North Korean" or "Red Square" style parade, much less contact the absolute least friendly news organization about it.
Seeing as how they didn't call it one but were thinking of one comparable to the NK and Soviets (it was the sources words not the teams words)
d-usa wrote: Added some stuff, ignored some suggestions
GDP
Budget Deficit/Surplus
Total Debt
Amount of Federal Spending
Federal Tax Rate
Trade Balance
Unemployment Rate
Underemployment Rate
# of soldiers killed
# of drone strikes
# of Nobel Prizes
# of executive orders
# of uninsured
Cost of Insurance (although that one would be hard, because it is ripe for number games)
# of manufacturing jobs
Inflation
Productivity-Pay Gap
Median Household Income
SNAP Participation
Medicaid Participation
# of Illegal Immigrants
# of Deportations
I think I'll try to do some homework tonight and find numbers for first and last year of the last few Presidents, and then start tracking Trump.
I think general approval rating might be one to add. Yeah, it is a distillation of all of the other factors (and one that can be manipulated somewhat), but a president, in order to be effective, must have the people behind him.
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
So, according to you, military are fascist. I'm certain you military forces will be happy knowing people they defend hate them. You do know that the military defend democracy, too ?
If you think that I feel sorry for you, maybe you should brush up on your own history when these types of military parades were common in paris in the early 40s
I don't get why people are so obsessed with the Nazis. Can't people speak of anything else ? They were military parades before them and after them.
Once again trump is not a poster so the sites rules do not apply to him
Neither is Inmate Manning, but make sure you use the correct gender pronouns for that deeply troubled individual.
The problem was that mis-pronouning Manning was not a personal insult, but more akin to using a racial slur since it showed contempt for the idea of transitioning, as opposed to the individual. Calling Manning a crazy, ugly, pathetic loser of a hamster-faced weasel would be acceptable where calling her a eunuch was not.
Just like saying Trump is a doritodouche is aimed just at him, but calling him Whitey von Cracker shouldn't be.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Well considering there will be more protesters than actually supporters of trump in DC this weekend that makes sense
Ancient Buddha questions your logic but applauds your leap of faith.
So are you saying Democrats in groups will naturally riot if they outnumber Republicans?
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
You seem to forget the strawmen of obama being lynched and burned. So I wouldn't talk
After Obama's inauguration? Yep... if true, I did forget that... can you provide a source?
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
So, according to you, military are fascist. I'm certain you military forces will be happy knowing people they defend hate them. You do know that the military defend democracy, too ?
If you think that I feel sorry for you, maybe you should brush up on your own history when these types of military parades were common in paris in the early 40s
I don't get why people are so obsessed with the Nazis. Can't people speak of anything else ? They were military parades before them and after them.
Once again trump is not a poster so the sites rules do not apply to him
Neither is Inmate Manning, but make sure you use the correct gender pronouns for that deeply troubled individual.
The problem was that mis-pronouning Manning was not a personal insult, but more akin to using a racial slur since it showed contempt for the idea of transitioning, as opposed to the individual. Calling Manning a crazy, ugly, pathetic loser of a hamster-faced weasel would be acceptable where calling her a eunuch was not.
Just like saying Trump is a doritodouche is aimed just at him, but calling him Whitey von Cracker shouldn't be.
I still refer to HIM as Bradley. Am I a monster ?
Don't the French have military parades? And of course the Ewoks.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
You seem to forget the strawmen of obama being lynched and burned. So I wouldn't talk
After Obama's inauguration? Yep... if true, I did forget that... can you provide a source?
I don't condone burning anyone in effigy. I don't condone flag burning. I don't see how either compare to full on rioting.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
You seem to forget the strawmen of obama being lynched and burned. So I wouldn't talk
After Obama's inauguration? Yep... if true, I did forget that... can you provide a source?
So the Whitehouse website has dropped all mention of climate change in favor of drill baby drill، dropped mention of LGBT rights and is plugging Melania's QVC line.
I don't get why people are so obsessed with the Nazis. Can't people speak of anything else ? They were military parades before them and after them.
Yup, also in the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, North Korea...etc
Military parades of serious hardware upon transfers of power are usually seen as unsuited to assumption of power ceremonies in most modern western democracies in most of our lifetimes. The story is likely false, but there's a reason it raises people's hackles.
I still refer to HIM as Bradley. Am I a monster ?
the mods just had several big posts about this in the last few pages...
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
Membership in Militias and white nationalist groups surged following the election of President Obama in 2008.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
You seem to forget the strawmen of obama being lynched and burned. So I wouldn't talk
After Obama's inauguration? Yep... if true, I did forget that... can you provide a source?
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
You seem to forget the strawmen of obama being lynched and burned. So I wouldn't talk
After Obama's inauguration? Yep... if true, I did forget that... can you provide a source?
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
Membership in Militias and white nationalist groups surged following the election of President Obama in 2008.
Cool. No riotings tho...
Look for the membership to drop, since the greatest spokemen for gun ownerships is retired:
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
Membership in Militias and white nationalist groups surged following the election of President Obama in 2008.
Cool. No riotings tho...
Look for the membership to drop, since the greatest spokemen for gun ownerships is retired:
And know where does it say that the source is a part of Trump's inauguration team, but was just involved with the inauguration itself. For all we know, it could have been an outgoing Obama staffer.
It doesn't really matter who they are. In any given room involving politics there are always people who want to talk to the press, and especially in something like a transition team, there are people working the trenches who eventually don't want to be in the trenches anymore. Cultivating relationships with news media is a basic skill for progressing in anything related to politics that isn't being an actual politician.
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
I'm skeptical of believing that a member of Trump's inauguration team felt the need to call up HuffPo and anonymously tell them that Trump wanted a "North Korea-style" military parade. It also isn't a step closer to anything because even if it were true it didn't actually happen and events that didn't transpire can't affect us.
I'm going to have to second that. HuffPost has done nothing but throw insults at the Trump team since they start (not even news, literally just insult pieces.) There is no reason that a member of the Trump team would call it a "North Korean" or "Red Square" style parade, much less contact the absolute least friendly news organization about it.
Seeing as how they didn't call it one but were thinking of one comparable to the NK and Soviets (it was the sources words not the teams words)
That's not what the article says:
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
HuffPo is claiming that an anonymous source on team Trump told them that Trump was "legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade" those are the source's words quoted by HuffPo.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
Membership in Militias and white nationalist groups surged following the election of President Obama in 2008.
Cool. No riotings tho...
Look for the membership to drop, since the greatest spokemen for gun ownerships is retired:
Spoiler:
Did Obama take all those guns the GOP and NRA were fear mongering about?
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
Membership in Militias and white nationalist groups surged following the election of President Obama in 2008.
Thats not a riot, even a quiet riot Thats a membership drive.
There have been a LOT of cops rolling around in downtown Houston today. Interesting. On the positive I am out of here in ten minutes. On the negative I have to drive three hours to...take dance lessons. Oh the humanity!
Look for the membership to drop, since the greatest spokemen for gun ownerships is retired:
Spoiler:
Or to drop since a black man isnt president
Are you kidding me? The NRA's messaging for the next four years is going to be, "Buy more guns/ammo so the regressive left, SJWs and libtards don't take over the government!
Look for the membership to drop, since the greatest spokemen for gun ownerships is retired:
Spoiler:
Or to drop since a black man isnt president
Are you kidding me? The NRA's messaging for the next four years is going to be, "Buy more guns/ammo so the regressive left, SJWs and libtards don't take over the government!
You forgot about the Haters. LaPierre warned us about those darn Haters!
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
I'm skeptical of believing that a member of Trump's inauguration team felt the need to call up HuffPo and anonymously tell them that Trump wanted a "North Korea-style" military parade. It also isn't a step closer to anything because even if it were true it didn't actually happen and events that didn't transpire can't affect us.
I'm going to have to second that. HuffPost has done nothing but throw insults at the Trump team since they start (not even news, literally just insult pieces.) There is no reason that a member of the Trump team would call it a "North Korean" or "Red Square" style parade, much less contact the absolute least friendly news organization about it.
Seeing as how they didn't call it one but were thinking of one comparable to the NK and Soviets (it was the sources words not the teams words)
That's not what the article says:
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
HuffPo is claiming that an anonymous source on team Trump told them that Trump was "legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade" those are the source's words quoted by HuffPo.
Reading comprehension is a good skill to have, that sentence is implying that the source is saying it was like a red square/ NK parade not that the team said it
Exactly. Conservatives haven't been (quite literally) burning down cities every time they get mad.
No, instead they shut down the government.
Which is an actual function of governance.
No, it is an actual function of non governance. In other words, avoiding their duty to actually govern-make deals, negotiate, cajole, convince, and come to an agreement. Not take the ball and run away. Not say "time out" when they can't think of a way to win.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Just watched part of it on the news, there's a mini riot going on in an intersection along the parade route, people are vandalizing buildings and throwing stuff at the cops. About 90 arrested, and plenty of concussion grenades and pepper spray to go around.
Yeah... just like when Obama was inaugurated in 2008... all those anti-Obama rioted... oh... wait a minute.
Membership in Militias and white nationalist groups surged following the election of President Obama in 2008.
Cool. No riotings tho...
Look for the membership to drop, since the greatest spokemen for gun ownerships is retired:
Spoiler:
whembly that pic only references Obama's first 4 years. The total number of NICS checks run by the FBI for gun sales during Obama's 8 years in office is 157,233,157. New annual records for NICS checks/gun sales were set numerous times during Obama's terms and the total during those 8 years is more than double the total of the preceding 10 years (61,249,149).
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
HuffPo is claiming that an anonymous source on team Trump told them that Trump was "legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade" those are the source's words quoted by HuffPo.
Do you think that only Team Trump folks are involved in the parade preparation?
There is no reason to think that the person talking was on Trump's team. There are plenty of non-Trump folks involved in these things.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
HuffPo is claiming that an anonymous source on team Trump told them that Trump was "legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade" those are the source's words quoted by HuffPo.
That's not what it says.
I fact it's unclear what it says. Does it mean "Trump's inaugural parade preparation" as in someone involved in preparation for the inaugural parade that is Trumps, or does it mean "Trump's inaugural parade preparation" as in someone who is working for Trump preparing his inaugural parade?
They're a half-step away from HuffPo/Breibart level...
And, this was reported that this'll happen everytime a new President get elected.
The entire web site was essentially redone to match the incoming President's agenda, not to "disappear" anything.
So we can assume that the President's agenda officially does not include civil rights, LGBTQ rights, and climate change?
We can assume they're not an agenda item in and of themselves. That doesn't mean the jack-boots are coming to kick in doors and take people to the camps like some people seem intent on insinuating.
They're a half-step away from HuffPo/Breibart level...
And, this was reported that this'll happen everytime a new President get elected.
The entire web site was essentially redone to match the incoming President's agenda, not to "disappear" anything.
So we can assume that the President's agenda officially does not include civil rights, LGBTQ rights, and climate change?
We can assume they're not an agenda item in and of themselves. That doesn't mean the jack-boots are coming to kick in doors and take people to the camps like some people seem intent on insinuating.
I am pretty sure he made his energy plans clear in just the past few hours.
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team reportedly wanted to include tanks and missile launchers during the inaugural parade Friday.
The Huffington Post cited sources saying that Trump's team wanted to have the military featured front and center as Trump took office, plans the military reportedly toned down.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
A representative for the US Defense Department did not comment on requests for military equipment, The Huffington Post said, referring inquiries to the Trump transition team. The report said Trump adviser Boris Epstein told The Huffington Post that the transition team consulted with the military "to render appropriate honors."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he wanted the military to have a strong presence at his inauguration ceremony.
"That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, DC, for parades," Trump said. "I mean, we're going to be showing our military."
The armed forces are usually present at inaugurations to help with coordination and to provide music and participate in salute batteries and color guards. Five-thousand service members are expected to participate in the event.
I'm skeptical of believing that a member of Trump's inauguration team felt the need to call up HuffPo and anonymously tell them that Trump wanted a "North Korea-style" military parade. It also isn't a step closer to anything because even if it were true it didn't actually happen and events that didn't transpire can't affect us.
I'm going to have to second that. HuffPost has done nothing but throw insults at the Trump team since they start (not even news, literally just insult pieces.) There is no reason that a member of the Trump team would call it a "North Korean" or "Red Square" style parade, much less contact the absolute least friendly news organization about it.
Seeing as how they didn't call it one but were thinking of one comparable to the NK and Soviets (it was the sources words not the teams words)
That's not what the article says:
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
HuffPo is claiming that an anonymous source on team Trump told them that Trump was "legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade" those are the source's words quoted by HuffPo.
Reading comprehension is a good skill to have, that sentence is implying that the source is saying it was like a red square/ NK parade not that the team said it
HuffPo is claiming that the source was "involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation." Did you think that HuffPo's source was just some random person that gave them a quote? If HuffPo's source isn't part of Trump's inauguration planning team how did the source know what kind of parade Trump wanted to have at his inauguration?
So Trump's first act as POTUS to make America great again was to allow the Chinese (and Germans, though they are way ahead already) to monopolize the research and production of the 21st century's energy? Yeah, that will work well. By MAGA! he really does mean return to a 1950s mindset, doesn't he?
HuffPo is claiming that the source was "involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation." Did you think that HuffPo's source was just some random person that gave them a quote? If HuffPo's source isn't part of Trump's inauguration planning team how did the source know what kind of parade Trump wanted to have at his inauguration?
Because plenty of non-Trump bleeding heart liberals are part of Trump's Inauguration Planning Team. Unlike the entire campaign, the inauguration is not produced by The Trump Organization, but rather by a governmental entity that includes lots of people, including some that are not fans of Trump.
So Trump's first act as POTUS to make America great again was to allow the Chinese (and Germans, though they are way ahead already) to monopolize the research and production of the 21st century's energy? Yeah, that will work well. By MAGA! he really does mean return to a 1950s mindset, doesn't he?
Maybe Trump isn't aware that the Fallout series are just games and actually thinks people had fusion powered cars in the 1950s?
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
HuffPo is claiming that an anonymous source on team Trump told them that Trump was "legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade" those are the source's words quoted by HuffPo.
That's not what it says.
I fact it's unclear what it says. Does it mean "Trump's inaugural parade preparation" as in someone involved in preparation for the inaugural parade that is Trumps, or does it mean "Trump's inaugural parade preparation" as in someone who is working for Trump preparing his inaugural parade?
It's Trump's parade, he's the client/boss so anyone working on the parade is working for Trump. Whether its a professional parade planner hired to work the inauguration for Trump or a dedicated Trump campaign staffer, the person is still working for Trump. If the person is just a hired professional then there's no reason to contact HuffPo for the sole purpose of making your client look bad, that's unprofessional and if the person is on Trump's staff there's no reason to contact an antagonistic media outlet and provide them with a quote that makes Trump look bad.
They're a half-step away from HuffPo/Breibart level...
And, this was reported that this'll happen everytime a new President get elected.
The entire web site was essentially redone to match the incoming President's agenda, not to "disappear" anything.
So we can assume that the President's agenda officially does not include civil rights, LGBTQ rights, and climate change?
We can assume they're not an agenda item in and of themselves. That doesn't mean the jack-boots are coming to kick in doors and take people to the camps like some people seem intent on insinuating.
Of course not. They need to let all of the real 'Mericans imprisoned in those FEMA camps underneath abandoned Walmarts first so they have room too silly.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
HuffPo is claiming that an anonymous source on team Trump told them that Trump was "legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade" those are the source's words quoted by HuffPo.
That's not what it says.
I fact it's unclear what it says. Does it mean "Trump's inaugural parade preparation" as in someone involved in preparation for the inaugural parade that is Trumps, or does it mean "Trump's inaugural parade preparation" as in someone who is working for Trump preparing his inaugural parade?
It's Trump's parade, he's the client/boss so anyone working on the parade is working for Trump. Whether its a professional parade planner hired to work the inauguration for Trump or a dedicated Trump campaign staffer, the person is still working for Trump. If the person is just a hired professional then there's no reason to contact HuffPo for the sole purpose of making your client look bad, that's unprofessional and if the person is on Trump's staff there's no reason to contact an antagonistic media outlet and provide them with a quote that makes Trump look bad.
\
Are you arguing that any leak against any Presidential administration were fake, because they were all on Team President and had no reason to make the President look bad?
So Trump's first act as POTUS to make America great again was to allow the Chinese (and Germans, though they are way ahead already) to monopolize the research and production of the 21st century's energy? Yeah, that will work well. By MAGA! he really does mean return to a 1950s mindset, doesn't he?
Maybe Trump isn't aware that the Fallout series are just games and actually thinks people had fusion powered cars in the 1950s?
I'm not really sure which of the horrible factions from Fallout Trump most closely aligns with. Brotherhood of Steel? Their bad parts are all essentially distillations of Trump's appeal.
They're a half-step away from HuffPo/Breibart level...
And, this was reported that this'll happen everytime a new President get elected.
The entire web site was essentially redone to match the incoming President's agenda, not to "disappear" anything.
So we can assume that the President's agenda officially does not include civil rights, LGBTQ rights, and climate change?
We can assume they're not an agenda item in and of themselves. That doesn't mean the jack-boots are coming to kick in doors and take people to the camps like some people seem intent on insinuating.
Of course not. They need to let all of the real 'Mericans imprisoned in those FEMA camps underneath abandoned Walmarts first so they have room too silly.
So Trump's first act as POTUS to make America great again was to allow the Chinese (and Germans, though they are way ahead already) to monopolize the research and production of the 21st century's energy? Yeah, that will work well. By MAGA! he really does mean return to a 1950s mindset, doesn't he?
Maybe Trump isn't aware that the Fallout series are just games and actually thinks people had fusion powered cars in the 1950s?
Maybe Trump watches a lot of CNN.
We're not living in a post-apocalyptic nuclear shelter in the year 2287, but the news sure makes it seem like we're inside Fallout 4.
In a CNN report on Russian hacking, first posted December 30 and updated Monday night, the news network used a screenshot from the popular Bethesda game as B-roll footage to demonstrate what hacking looks like.
The two-second shot might have resembled a cyberattack, but to eagle-eyed Fallout 4 fans, it was pretty obvious where the random characters came from.
"They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade," a source involved in Trump's inaugural parade preparation told The Huffington Post.
HuffPo is claiming that an anonymous source on team Trump told them that Trump was "legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade" those are the source's words quoted by HuffPo.
That's not what it says.
I fact it's unclear what it says. Does it mean "Trump's inaugural parade preparation" as in someone involved in preparation for the inaugural parade that is Trumps, or does it mean "Trump's inaugural parade preparation" as in someone who is working for Trump preparing his inaugural parade?
It's Trump's parade, he's the client/boss so anyone working on the parade is working for Trump. Whether its a professional parade planner hired to work the inauguration for Trump or a dedicated Trump campaign staffer, the person is still working for Trump. If the person is just a hired professional then there's no reason to contact HuffPo for the sole purpose of making your client look bad, that's unprofessional and if the person is on Trump's staff there's no reason to contact an antagonistic media outlet and provide them with a quote that makes Trump look bad.
\
Are you arguing that any leak against any Presidential administration were fake, because they were all on Team President and had no reason to make the President look bad?
I'm pointing out the coincidence in this particular case of a media outlet that has already professed it's dislike for a politician happened to be contacted by an anonymous source that provided a quote that makes that politician look bad. HuffPo is lucky that Trump managed to profess his desire for a military parade within earshot of somebody who wanted to pass it on to HuffPo so Trump would look like a fascistic dbag.
I'm not giving a lot of credence to the HuffPo report. There's plenty of objectionable stuff that Trump has said and done without taking hearsay anecdotes from anonymous sources as the gospel truth so I'm gonna shrug this off with a meh, your mileage may vary.
They're a half-step away from HuffPo/Breibart level...
And, this was reported that this'll happen everytime a new President get elected.
The entire web site was essentially redone to match the incoming President's agenda, not to "disappear" anything.
So we can assume that the President's agenda officially does not include civil rights, LGBTQ rights, and climate change?
We can assume they're not an agenda item in and of themselves. That doesn't mean the jack-boots are coming to kick in doors and take people to the camps like some people seem intent on insinuating.
Of course not. They need to let all of the real 'Mericans imprisoned in those FEMA camps underneath abandoned Walmarts first so they have room too silly.
It's Trump's parade, he's the client/boss so anyone working on the parade is working for Trump. Whether its a professional parade planner hired to work the inauguration for Trump or a dedicated Trump campaign staffer, the person is still working for Trump.
And thus the demand that all be silent before glorious leader begins.
If the person is just a hired professional then there's no reason to contact HuffPo for the sole purpose of making your client look bad,
I explained this on the previous page.
In any given room involving politics there are always people who want to talk to the press, and especially in something like a transition team, there are people working the trenches who eventually don't want to be in the trenches anymore. Cultivating relationships with news media is a basic skill for progressing in anything related to politics that isn't being an actual politician.
There is always someone willing to talk to the press, and there are always reporters who can get people who don't to tell them things anyway (seriously, did people learn nothing from all that McCrystal stuff?)
that's unprofessional and if the person is on Trump's staff there's no reason to contact an antagonistic media outlet and provide them with a quote that makes Trump look bad.
I'm kind of disturbed that the focus of this is on how an anonymous person must be a bad employee for giving a news outlet a quote, rather than Trump idolizing the kind of state displays of power you only use when you want to remind your own people who has all the power (because all those parades back in the 40s and 50s in the USSR, Germany, the US, and Britain, weren't just about impressing foreigners with how well your soldiers can march in straight lines). I'm going to go ahead and predict that in the next four years, someone will propose removing presidential term limits, and when it happens a staggering number of people will continue to ignore that Trump is bringing onto the table a disturbing focus on aggrandizement and pandering.
@prestor Jon: On the other hand, maybe the CNN "reporters" (they aren't, they are just repeaters, get a news division cable "news" channels!) watch a lot of Trump. It is easy to listen to a Trump speech and think the apocalpyse already happened, hence the making America great again slogan. I just wish he would have used a little bit of Marty Robbins as his campaign music. Marty Robbins is the gak.
Are you arguing that any leak against any Presidential administration were fake, because they were all on Team President and had no reason to make the President look bad?
I'm pointing out the coincidence in this particular case of a media outlet that has already professed it's dislike for a politician happened to be contacted by an anonymous source that provided a quote that makes that politician look bad. HuffPo is lucky that Trump managed to profess his desire for a military parade within earshot of somebody who wanted to pass it on to HuffPo so Trump would look like a fascistic dbag.
I'm not giving a lot of credence to the HuffPo report. There's plenty of objectionable stuff that Trump has said and done without taking hearsay anecdotes from anonymous sources as the gospel truth so I'm gonna shrug this off with a meh, your mileage may vary.
The credibility of HuffPo aside, and I admit it's pretty low, you would probably go to an outlet that is receptive to your message if you wanted to leak it.
And I think that it's more likely than not that there are enough people involved in the parade planning that a "can we have more military and stuff" question could be overheard by someone not sympathetic to Trump. There are people in the process that have no loyalty to Trump and who could see such a desire as a warning sign and who want to share it with others.
This is a separate argument from "what's the likelihood of this claim being true". It's a "what's the likelihood of someone leaking it if it is true" argument.
I think that it is very likely that someone would leak such a question or request if it was made.
I also think that is is more likely than not that someone on the Trump side of things asked something along the lines of "can we feature the military to show our support", followed by people involved in that conversation talking to someone else going "Trump wants the military involved', that person talking to someone else going "Trump wants a military parade with tanks and rockets", and that person running to HuffPo where that story was then shared.
Prestor Jon wrote: Most of what the Dept of Ed does is handing out federal funding, making sure the right amounts go to the right schools with the right strings attached. It's a big factor in a lot of the problems we have in public education. The qualifications that schools have to meet to get their federal funding is primarily getting good test scores on federally mandated end of grade tests. That's why 3rd graders at my kids elementary school get stress counseling and teachers get stuck having to teach to the test, because if the kids don't get good marks on their EOG standardized tests then the school loses money. If you don't like economic policy that just amounts to the rich getting richer then I don't know why you're a fan of this education policy.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I posted. It's just a boilerplate "NCLB is bad" post. Nothing wrong with pointing out the many issues with NCLB and the general idea of standardised testing = funding. The question is about how it might be fixed, and more specifically how the incoming presidency plans to address the issue.
The big idea from DeVos is that you give public money to support kids moving in to non-public schools. It's an okay idea, that might work if well managed. The issue is how you manage to ensure that lots of private schools of varying means, sizes and goals are delivering results for kids and giving a reasonable return on taxpayer funds. DeVos has shown she has little interest in actually monitoring this in a meaningful way. That's the issue here.
If you want some actual experience in this, here in WA (and more generally Australia wide) we just went through a process of opening up vocational education to private companies - the new scheme gave them govt funding for each student they took on much the same as the voucher system proposed in the US. I was actually part of seeing all this role out, as I was working at one of the state vocational schools at the time. At its core the scheme isn't too bad, there's plenty of training types the private sector can deliver at a lower cost, and having a range of private actors offering courses makes for a more flexible market as private actors can raise and lower capacity more easily to meet market demand. However, all that counts for nought if you don't have an effective scheme in place to monitor what these schools are delivering. What we saw was a range of fly by night companies geared to take student fees and government money, who'd then offer as little as possible until they collapsed, and then start up next term under a new name. It wasted government money and cost students a wasted year or two.
Lessons were learned, better monitoring schemes were put in place and the industry is slowly starting to right itself. A similar thing has occurred with college loans and shonky for profits in the US tertiary sector, which is slowly being fixed with better monitoring.
And now we have DeVos coming in to the job, with little interest in the existing monitoring system on US private colleges, and wanting to bring in a similar system in primary and secondary education, again with little interest in monitoring.
The problem isn't hard to spot.
Instead of having the Federal govt collect Federal taxes from state residents just to then send that money back to the schools those residents use via a convoluted Federal program the Federal govt should collect less tax revenue, not give money to schools and leave the states and local govts to run the schools and collect taxes to fund them. The Dept of Ed has no idea what my local schools are like, there are no Dept of Ed employees who take the time to research the schools and find out exactly what the successes and failures of each are and how they're doing. The Dept of Ed only knows my local schools as a table of test results that is used to determine federal funding payments. My county school board, school superintendent, principals, state representatives and state dept of Education actually know what's going on with my local schools, collects data on the schools and student performance and most importantly they are much more susceptible to the desires of the public they serve than Federal bureaucrats and cabinet appointees that don't give a feth about my kids because they don't even know they exist.
You just finished a bit in which you claim to be concerned about the rich getting richer, and then here you are saying each school district should pay for itself, with little to no interest shown in the massive differences in resources available to rich compared to poor districts. Wow.
School districts don't pay for themselves they receive money from the state. The state funds the schools that's why inner city schools in Newark NJ can spend more money per pupil than the high school I attended in the neighboring suburbs. School spending is a matter of public record and the states publicize it so the public knows where the education money is going. The inner city schools in NJ are spending more per pupil than the state average already. Having the Federal govt reduce Federal taxes so state residents have more money allows the States to raise taxes without increasing the tax burden on its residents and increase revenues earmarked for education spending. State govt is responsible for administering public schools, they track the data, pass applicable laws, take over failing schools etc. so they are much better equipped to fund public schools in a targeted way that maximizes student benefit compared to Federal programs.
Meh, there is a fine balance between encouraging home ownership which grows the economy and risking a new bubble which harms the economy.
The program would have saved people an average of $500 a year, and I would love to have $500 in my pocket to buy 450 points worth of a 40K army, but if that $42 a month was the difference between someone being able to afford a mortgage then it was a risk that was too high too take.
Regarding Huffington Post as a news source...opinion and bias seeps into almost everything they publish. But I admit, they're #1 when it comes to the crucial sideboob issues facing our nation.
A parade of military hardware would have been cool. Don't you guys ever go to airshows and gak like that? It's fun stuff to watch.
Are you arguing that any leak against any Presidential administration were fake, because they were all on Team President and had no reason to make the President look bad?
I'm pointing out the coincidence in this particular case of a media outlet that has already professed it's dislike for a politician happened to be contacted by an anonymous source that provided a quote that makes that politician look bad. HuffPo is lucky that Trump managed to profess his desire for a military parade within earshot of somebody who wanted to pass it on to HuffPo so Trump would look like a fascistic dbag.
I'm not giving a lot of credence to the HuffPo report. There's plenty of objectionable stuff that Trump has said and done without taking hearsay anecdotes from anonymous sources as the gospel truth so I'm gonna shrug this off with a meh, your mileage may vary.
The credibility of HuffPo aside, and I admit it's pretty low, you would probably go to an outlet that is receptive to your message if you wanted to leak it.
And I think that it's more likely than not that there are enough people involved in the parade planning that a "can we have more military and stuff" question could be overheard by someone not sympathetic to Trump. There are people in the process that have no loyalty to Trump and who could see such a desire as a warning sign and who want to share it with others.
This is a separate argument from "what's the likelihood of this claim being true". It's a "what's the likelihood of someone leaking it if it is true" argument.
I think that it is very likely that someone would leak such a question or request if it was made.
I also think that is is more likely than not that someone on the Trump side of things asked something along the lines of "can we feature the military to show our support", followed by people involved in that conversation talking to someone else going "Trump wants the military involved', that person talking to someone else going "Trump wants a military parade with tanks and rockets", and that person running to HuffPo where that story was then shared.
I agree with you on that. The way the HuffPo article reads strikes me as overly inflammatory and therefore makes me question its validity.
Eh, when the government shutdown noone was hurt, killed, attacked. Nobodies place of business was burned down or looted. To top it off, the mass majority of government stayed up and running.
The only people hurt were those who wanted to take a walk in a national park but weren't able to. I'd hardly compare that to being attacked, or having one's business burned down.
Cothonian wrote: Eh, when the government shutdown noone was hurt, killed, attacked. Nobodies place of business was burned down or looted. To top it off, the mass majority of government stayed up and running.
The only people hurt were those who wanted to take a walk in a national park but weren't able to. I'd hardly compare that to being attacked, or having one's business burned down.
I lost out on a job with a defense contractor that would have been a major step up in life directly because of it, ended up having to abandon that path and move to tread another ultimately as a result. That shutdown had very real implications beyond just parks not being open.
A parade of military hardware would have been cool. Don't you guys ever go to airshows and gak like that? It's fun stuff to watch.
They are, and they are appropriate for occasions featuring the military.
I don't think they are appropriate for occasions that feature the civilian leadership of our government. I think the current ways the military is included are pretty good.
Cothonian wrote: Eh, when the government shutdown noone was hurt, killed, attacked. Nobodies place of business was burned down or looted. To top it off, the mass majority of government stayed up and running.
The only people hurt were those who wanted to take a walk in a national park but weren't able to. I'd hardly compare that to being attacked, or having one's business burned down.
I lost out on a job with a defense contractor that would have been a major step up in life directly because of it, ended up having to abandon that path and move to tread another ultimately as a result. That shutdown had very real implications beyond just parks not being open.
Government workers not getting paid aren't people either.
Cothonian wrote: Eh, when the government shutdown noone was hurt, killed, attacked. Nobodies place of business was burned down or looted. To top it off, the mass majority of government stayed up and running.
The only people hurt were those who wanted to take a walk in a national park but weren't able to. I'd hardly compare that to being attacked, or having one's business burned down.
I lost out on a job with a defense contractor that would have been a major step up in life directly because of it, ended up having to abandon that path and move to tread another ultimately as a result. That shutdown had very real implications beyond just parks not being open.
Yeah but you weren't set on fire, so obviously you're just being dramatic
Cothonian wrote: Eh, when the government shutdown noone was hurt, killed, attacked. Nobodies place of business was burned down or looted. To top it off, the mass majority of government stayed up and running.
The only people hurt were those who wanted to take a walk in a national park but weren't able to. I'd hardly compare that to being attacked, or having one's business burned down.
I lost out on a job with a defense contractor that would have been a major step up in life directly because of it, ended up having to abandon that path and move to tread another ultimately as a result. That shutdown had very real implications beyond just parks not being open.
Yeah but you weren't set on fire, so obviously you're just being dramatic
A parade of military hardware would have been cool. Don't you guys ever go to airshows and gak like that? It's fun stuff to watch.
They are, and they are appropriate for occasions featuring the military.
I don't think they are appropriate for occasions that feature the civilian leadership of our government. I think the current ways the military is included are pretty good.
I'm definitely not disappointed that there was no hardware, I just think this issue even if it were true would have been much to do about nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cothonian wrote: Eh, when the government shutdown noone was hurt, killed, attacked. Nobodies place of business was burned down or looted. To top it off, the mass majority of government stayed up and running.
The only people hurt were those who wanted to take a walk in a national park but weren't able to. I'd hardly compare that to being attacked, or having one's business burned down.
Government workers went without pay, so there's that. But I know that to a good chunk of Americans, government workers are subhuman.
I affirm your full humanity. My neighbor works for the feds and her finances went to absolute gak with the furlough because she was living paycheck to paycheck. I was just responding to the assertion that no-one got hurt by the shutdown.
They're a half-step away from HuffPo/Breibart level...
And, this was reported that this'll happen everytime a new President get elected.
The entire web site was essentially redone to match the incoming President's agenda, not to "disappear" anything.
So we can assume that the President's agenda officially does not include civil rights, LGBTQ rights, and climate change?
We can assume they're not an agenda item in and of themselves. That doesn't mean the jack-boots are coming to kick in doors and take people to the camps like some people seem intent on insinuating.
The ones in jack boots are attacking Trump supporters. with bottles, mace, and clubs
It's Trump's parade, he's the client/boss so anyone working on the parade is working for Trump. Whether its a professional parade planner hired to work the inauguration for Trump or a dedicated Trump campaign staffer, the person is still working for Trump.
And thus the demand that all be silent before glorious leader begins.
If the person is just a hired professional then there's no reason to contact HuffPo for the sole purpose of making your client look bad,
I explained this on the previous page.
In any given room involving politics there are always people who want to talk to the press, and especially in something like a transition team, there are people working the trenches who eventually don't want to be in the trenches anymore. Cultivating relationships with news media is a basic skill for progressing in anything related to politics that isn't being an actual politician.
There is always someone willing to talk to the press, and there are always reporters who can get people who don't to tell them things anyway (seriously, did people learn nothing from all that McCrystal stuff?)
that's unprofessional and if the person is on Trump's staff there's no reason to contact an antagonistic media outlet and provide them with a quote that makes Trump look bad.
I'm kind of disturbed that the focus of this is on how an anonymous person must be a bad employee for giving a news outlet a quote, rather than Trump idolizing the kind of state displays of power you only use when you want to remind your own people who has all the power (because all those parades back in the 40s and 50s in the USSR, Germany, the US, and Britain, weren't just about impressing foreigners with how well your soldiers can march in straight lines). I'm going to go ahead and predict that in the next four years, someone will propose removing presidential term limits, and when it happens a staggering number of people will continue to ignore that Trump is bringing onto the table a disturbing focus on aggrandizement and pandering.
People don't need to be silent in regards to Trump, people should just be professional. Dropping anonymous quotes that amount to telling people that somebody had a bad idea so we should all snort with derision and roll our eyes or point and laugh is poor form when the person being mocked is your boss or client.
I don't question the ability for people to overhear Trump's comments I question the coincidence of somebody overhearing something that fits perfectly with a narrative they're pushing in regards to Trump. The way that fits together strains credulity for me.
I don't trust HuffPo to convey to me a truthful representation of what Trump thinks about anything. Trump's statements and actions do a better job of that than any HuffPo article ever could.
If Republicans propose legislation to end Presidential term limits it will be because they think Trump will win reelection in 2020 and have a shot at winning again in 2024 if he ran. If the next few years manage to convince people that's a possibility then Trump will have done a far better job as PotUS than most people expected so while ending term limits is a bad idea, Trump gaining support would probably be indicative of the country doing very well.
I affirm your humanity. My neighbor works for the feds and her finances went to absolute gak with the furlough because she was living paycheck to paycheck. I was just responding to the assertion that no-one got hurt by the shutdown.
I'm wondering if it will be even worse tomorrow with the Women's March on Washington. Hope everyone stays safe and the protests are civil, but I won't hold my breath.
jasper76 wrote: I'm wondering if it will be even worse tomorrow with the Women's March on Washington. Hope everyone stays safe and the protests are civil, but I won't hold my breath.
I just feel bad for the people that have to clean the bathrooms. It seems counterintuitive but women's restrooms get trashed way worse than men's restrooms. Every place I've worked that's had public bathrooms that's been the case.
So many people who can't accept the democratic process.
I dislike Trump as much as the next person (well, maybe not judging by some of these people), but the fact remains he was elected President by the system we have in place.
No amount of destroying private property will change that.
Peaceful protest? Fine, as long as nobody gets hurt and you don't disrupt people's lives by making them late for work or disrupting emergency services routes on the freeway.
But these people who start destroying their own communities because things happened the way they are supposed to sicken me.
I dislike Trump as much as the next person (well, maybe not judging by some of these people), but the fact remains he was elected President by the system we have in place.
No amount of destroying private property will change that.
Peaceful protest? Fine, as long as nobody gets hurt and you don't disrupt people's lives by making them late for work or disrupting emergency services routes on the freeway.
But these people who start destroying their own communities because things happened the way they are supposed to sicken me.
Ehh.... we riot when our hockey team doesn't win.
At least the election of such a obviously terrible human gakstain is something despicable enough to actually worth rioting over.
feeder wrote: You don't think women have just cause to be upset that President Donnie "Grab Em By the Pussy" Drumpf is an actual fething thing now?
It's not that...
I'm thinking...
So your response to a woman who is upset about a man who said "grab them by the pussy" getting elected as the president of the United States of America is lol Star Wars gif? Good to know.
So your response to a woman who is upset about a man who said "grab them by the pussy" getting elected as the president of the United States of America is lol Star Wars gif? Good to know.
Who cares what he said if he doesn't actually do it
feeder wrote: You don't think women have just cause to be upset that President Donnie "Grab Em By the Pussy" Drumpf is an actual fething thing now?
It's not that...
I'm thinking...
So your response to a woman who is upset about a man who said "grab them by the pussy" getting elected as the president of the United States of America is lol Star Wars gif? Good to know.
I for one support glorious leader. Just because a man spends an entire year fueling division with literally no help from anyone but his own Twitter Account, doesn't mean he can't turn around and ask "why so serious?"
So, I came across a headline of an article on MSN and it read, "Donald Trump's Inauguration Speech Borrows Line from Batman Villain Bane". Is it bad that the quote which immediately came to mind was, "Kill them all" from that Auralnauts Bane parody video on Youtube?
Breotan wrote: So, I came across a headline of an article on MSN and it read, "Donald Trump's Inauguration Speech Borrows Line from Batman Villain Bane". Is it bad that the quote which immediately came to mind was, "Kill them all" from that Auralnauts Bane parody video on Youtube?
I don't know, it is appropriately similar to Mr. Garrison's "feth them all to death" campaign pledge
Gordon Shumway wrote: So your response to a woman who is upset about a man who said "grab them by the pussy" getting elected as the president of the United States of America is lol Star Wars gif? Good to know.
Given that her reaction was just as over the top, I'd say so.
Breotan wrote: So, I came across a headline of an article on MSN and it read, "Donald Trump's Inauguration Speech Borrows Line from Batman Villain Bane". Is it bad that the quote which immediately came to mind was, "Kill them all" from that Auralnauts Bane parody video on Youtube?
I don't know, it is appropriately similar to Mr. Garrison's "feth them all to death" campaign pledge
I mean, we had Bannon - and he's still in there, right? - who named Dick Cheney, Darth Vader, and Satan as inspirations. Whether or not that was bait, Bane's probably somewhere on that list.
Breotan wrote: So, I came across a headline of an article on MSN and it read, "Donald Trump's Inauguration Speech Borrows Line from Batman Villain Bane". Is it bad that the quote which immediately came to mind was, "Kill them all" from that Auralnauts Bane parody video on Youtube?
Yes. The line which should have come to mind was "This is your body without fiber!"
jasper76 wrote: I'm wondering if it will be even worse tomorrow with the Women's March on Washington. Hope everyone stays safe and the protests are civil, but I won't hold my breath.
I just feel bad for the people that have to clean the bathrooms. It seems counterintuitive but women's restrooms get trashed way worse than men's restrooms. Every place I've worked that's had public bathrooms that's been the case.
I dislike Trump as much as the next person (well, maybe not judging by some of these people), but the fact remains he was elected President by the system we have in place.
No amount of destroying private property will change that.
Peaceful protest? Fine, as long as nobody gets hurt and you don't disrupt people's lives by making them late for work or disrupting emergency services routes on the freeway.
But these people who start destroying their own communities because things happened the way they are supposed to sicken me.
Have an exalt. There seems to be a big discussion about if a small minority of liberal supporters are worse than a small minority of conservative supporters, which doesn't even makes sense as an argument and bypasses the fact that this sort of response simply isn't OK.
Rosebuddy wrote: To start with, declaring black people non-human and using them for chattel slavery is pretty divisive. Once slavery was crushed they still weren't allowed to vote until the 60's. .
feeder wrote: You don't think women have just cause to be upset that President Donnie "Grab Em By the Pussy" Drumpf is an actual fething thing now?
It's not that...
I'm thinking...
So your response to a woman who is upset about a man who said "grab them by the pussy" getting elected as the president of the United States of America is lol Star Wars gif? Good to know.
...jeez... who pee'd in your cheerios?
You did. You peed in my Cheerios with a stupid gif. Some people do not want to be grabbed in their genitals by other people. Some people think that is deplorable. Some people think electing someone who would say that is deplorable. Some people think that turning that gif into a lol shrug meme is deplorable. sometimes we who think that will errantly put all of you into a basket of people who we find deplorable. Sometimes, rarely, but sometimes, we should hold people to a standard that our twelve year old boy should look up to. It is deplorable. Wanna put yourself in that basket who think it isn't?
Rosebuddy wrote: To start with, declaring black people non-human and using them for chattel slavery is pretty divisive. Once slavery was crushed they still weren't allowed to vote until the 60's. .
Seriously?
What's controversial about that? They were given the legal right to vote, but there were still various laws aimed at making sure that very few of them were ever able to do so.
feeder wrote: You don't think women have just cause to be upset that President Donnie "Grab Em By the Pussy" Drumpf is an actual fething thing now?
It's not that...
I'm thinking...
So your response to a woman who is upset about a man who said "grab them by the pussy" getting elected as the president of the United States of America is lol Star Wars gif? Good to know.
...jeez... who pee'd in your cheerios?
You did. You peed in my Cheerios with a stupid gif. Some people do not want to be grabbed in their genitals by other people. Some people think that is deplorable. Some people think electing someone who would say that is deplorable. Some people think that turning that gif into a lol shrug meme is deplorable. sometimes we who think that will errantly put all of you into a basket of people who we find deplorable. Sometimes, rarely, but sometimes, we should hold people to a standard that our twelve year old boy should look up to. It is deplorable. Wanna put yourself in that basket who think it isn't?
Nah... its fething hysterical and definitely meme worthy.
If you make a spectacle like that, you deal with spectacle afterwards.
Rosebuddy wrote: To start with, declaring black people non-human and using them for chattel slavery is pretty divisive. Once slavery was crushed they still weren't allowed to vote until the 60's. .
Seriously?
Well, on a technical level that's completely incorrect XD
On a more functional level it's still incorrect but less so (but not by much).
Only a few states were truly successful in blocking the black vote (some Southern and many Mid-Western states tried and failed on numerous attempts). While nearly all states made it more difficult for blacks to vote up until the 60s, it was really only the deep South, that managed to consistently prevent blacks from voting in elections and that ability didn't really set in until the 1890s. One of the things generally overlooked in this period though is that African Americans consistently won challenges to disenfranchisement laws throughout the US pretty much from the end of the Civil War onward. It's just that every time the Supreme Court knocked one Jim Crow law down, states rapidly put a new one in place that needed to be challenged all over again.
feeder wrote: You don't think women have just cause to be upset that President Donnie "Grab Em By the Pussy" Drumpf is an actual fething thing now?
It's not that...
I'm thinking...
So your response to a woman who is upset about a man who said "grab them by the pussy" getting elected as the president of the United States of America is lol Star Wars gif? Good to know.
...jeez... who pee'd in your cheerios?
You did. You peed in my Cheerios with a stupid gif. Some people do not want to be grabbed in their genitals by other people. Some people think that is deplorable. Some people think electing someone who would say that is deplorable. Some people think that turning that gif into a lol shrug meme is deplorable. sometimes we who think that will errantly put all of you into a basket of people who we find deplorable. Sometimes, rarely, but sometimes, we should hold people to a standard that our twelve year old boy should look up to. It is deplorable. Wanna put yourself in that basket who think it isn't?
Nah... its fething hysterical and definitely meme worthy.
If you make a spectacle like that, you deal with spectacle afterwards.
Yup, saying women are just objects to touch is hysterical. Laugh a minute. Funny stuff. Grope another person and deal with the consequences later. Good advice for a twelve year old boy.MAGA! How about using a gif of a woman who is testifying in court about someone violating her instead? Not nearly as funny, but a lot more accurate.
feeder wrote: You don't think women have just cause to be upset that President Donnie "Grab Em By the Pussy" Drumpf is an actual fething thing now?
It's not that...
I'm thinking...
So your response to a woman who is upset about a man who said "grab them by the pussy" getting elected as the president of the United States of America is lol Star Wars gif? Good to know.
...jeez... who pee'd in your cheerios?
You did. You peed in my Cheerios with a stupid gif. Some people do not want to be grabbed in their genitals by other people. Some people think that is deplorable. Some people think electing someone who would say that is deplorable. Some people think that turning that gif into a lol shrug meme is deplorable. sometimes we who think that will errantly put all of you into a basket of people who we find deplorable. Sometimes, rarely, but sometimes, we should hold people to a standard that our twelve year old boy should look up to. It is deplorable. Wanna put yourself in that basket who think it isn't?
Nah... its fething hysterical and definitely meme worthy.
If you make a spectacle like that, you deal with spectacle afterwards.
Yup, saying women are just objects to touch is hysterical. Laugh a minute. Funny stuff. Grope another person and deal with the consequences later. Good advice for a twelve year old boy.MAGA!
Rosebuddy wrote: To start with, declaring black people non-human and using them for chattel slavery is pretty divisive. Once slavery was crushed they still weren't allowed to vote until the 60's. .
Seriously?
What's controversial about that? They were given the legal right to vote, but there were still various laws aimed at making sure that very few of them were ever able to do so.
Okay.
Guess my understanding of history is way off. I could have sworn the 15th Amendment was before the 1960s.
feeder wrote: You don't think women have just cause to be upset that President Donnie "Grab Em By the Pussy" Drumpf is an actual fething thing now?
It's not that...
I'm thinking...
So your response to a woman who is upset about a man who said "grab them by the pussy" getting elected as the president of the United States of America is lol Star Wars gif? Good to know.
...jeez... who pee'd in your cheerios?
You did. You peed in my Cheerios with a stupid gif. Some people do not want to be grabbed in their genitals by other people. Some people think that is deplorable. Some people think electing someone who would say that is deplorable. Some people think that turning that gif into a lol shrug meme is deplorable. sometimes we who think that will errantly put all of you into a basket of people who we find deplorable. Sometimes, rarely, but sometimes, we should hold people to a standard that our twelve year old boy should look up to. It is deplorable. Wanna put yourself in that basket who think it isn't?
Nah... its fething hysterical and definitely meme worthy.
If you make a spectacle like that, you deal with spectacle afterwards.
Yup, saying women are just objects to touch is hysterical. Laugh a minute. Funny stuff. Grope another person and deal with the consequences later. Good advice for a twelve year old boy.MAGA!
How was i putting words in your mouth? The message thread speaks for itself. You used a Star Wars meme for something stupid to equate to people's distaste for it. You said your gif or the words Trump used were "hysterical". Ha ha. Funny stuff. Molestation can't get any funnier. Dont double down anymore on this one, doubling down on zeros isn't getting you any points.
Rosebuddy wrote: To start with, declaring black people non-human and using them for chattel slavery is pretty divisive. Once slavery was crushed they still weren't allowed to vote until the 60's. .
Seriously?
What's controversial about that? They were given the legal right to vote, but there were still various laws aimed at making sure that very few of them were ever able to do so.
Okay.
Guess my understanding of history is way off. I could have sworn the 15th Amendment was before the 1960s.
I was referring more to the Voting Rights Act and the whole Civil Rights movement in general.
Rioting, vandalizing and even taking hammers to a limo.
The Limo I can understand...But why smash up a cafe? WTF has the cafe done to them? And its even more disgusting if the cafe was a small family company as opposed to a big corporate chain like Starbucks.
The Limo I can understand...But why smash up a cafe? WTF has the cafe done to them? And its even more disgusting if the cafe was a small family company as opposed to a big corporate chain like Starbucks.
They are anarchists. They want to bring society as a whole to a crashing halt. They are seeing an opportunity because of the huge divide that's growing in society; they aren't protesting against Trump, they are protesting against society. It's just a different way of exploiting divisions compared to Trump but that's their end goal. It's just as dangerous as populism if left unchecked.
I dislike Trump as much as the next person (well, maybe not judging by some of these people), but the fact remains he was elected President by the system we have in place.
No amount of destroying private property will change that.
Peaceful protest? Fine, as long as nobody gets hurt and you don't disrupt people's lives by making them late for work or disrupting emergency services routes on the freeway.
But these people who start destroying their own communities because things happened the way they are supposed to sicken me.
Given who is infesting Trump's administration, they might be just destroying government property...
The Limo I can understand...But why smash up a cafe? WTF has the cafe done to them? And its even more disgusting if the cafe was a small family company as opposed to a big corporate chain like Starbucks.
They are anarchists. They want to bring society as a whole to a crashing halt. They are seeing an opportunity because of the huge divide that's growing in society; they aren't protesting against Trump, they are protesting against society. It's just a different way of exploiting divisions compared to Trump but that's their end goal. It's just as dangerous as populism if left unchecked.
Right, but if its some anti upper class, class warfare thing why not target a big rich corporation like Starbucks? I Googled Atrium Cafe and as far as I can tell they're a small company with just three cafes in Washington DC and nowhere else, as opposed to a nation-wide or international chain like Starbucks.
Thats like me saying "Feth the rich upper class!" ...and then smashing up the windows of my local chippy or family run Indian restaurant. Joe Schmoe is not quite what I have in mind when somebody tries to 'stick it to the man'.
The Washinton D.C. Area has spent most of the last three decades undergoing a lot of gentrification. This has displaced many of the traditional residents of the city who can no longer afford to live there. One of the most extreme cases is the U-Street Corridor, a traditionally black neighborhood in D.C. that is now mostly hipsters, white retirees, and high end housing and night life projects. Politically U-Street and the general Shaw, Mt. Vernon, and Logan Circle areas have become symbols of the rich (and white) forcing everyone else out and stealing the culture of the area*. Two of Atrium Cafe's locations are placed right in/near this area, and may have been destroyed as a symbol of these processes.
*Many business in the area attempt to maintain the flavor of the neighborhood, even though the historical black area is now increasingly white.
This is of course making the rather grand assumption that the people setting the place on fire are actually from D.C., and aware of some of the things happening in the city, and aren't just destroying the first classy looking place they can find because they're a mob and destroying things is kind of what they do.
Relapse wrote: The actions of these people demonstrate why Trump won.
I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him. It couldn't possibly be the anti-intellectualism fostered by the American right. Or the continual demonization of government at all levels. Or the way nationalism is presented as the only way forward, all others who dare question being deemed "unpatriotic". No it has to be those darn liberals, it's their fault!
Not surprised. A qualified candidate with support from both sides. Although, with a GOP controlled congress, I wouldn't be surprised if even the really bad ones get through without a fight.
Yup, its the fault of a handful of dumbasses taking an excuse to be gakky.
Not an antiestablishment populist wave on both sides that one party crushed and the other was overtaken by, not a last minute akward leak from the FBI that started to tank Clintons ratings in the last two weeks. Not resigned and disgruntled voters staying home in key districrs. Nor any one of hundreds of other things.
Not surprised. A qualified candidate with support from both sides. Although, with a GOP controlled congress, I wouldn't be surprised if even the really bad ones get through without a fight.
Mattis was a shoe-in, but yeah, even the demonstrably unqualified and monstrously inappropriate ones like DeVos will be confirmed.
Relapse wrote: The actions of these people demonstrate why Trump won.
I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him. It couldn't possibly be the anti-intellectualism fostered by the American right. Or the continual demonization of government at all levels. Or the way nationalism is presented as the only way forward, all others who dare question being deemed "unpatriotic". No it has to be those darn liberals, it's their fault!
Actually, many people have gotten sick of the liberals who are tolerant until they are disagreed with. They simply don't want to support the politicians who support these types. This is why the Republicans did so well this election with the Senate, House and Presidential races.
Relapse wrote: The actions of these people demonstrate why Trump won.
I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him. It couldn't possibly be the anti-intellectualism fostered by the American right. Or the continual demonization of government at all levels. Or the way nationalism is presented as the only way forward, all others who dare question being deemed "unpatriotic". No it has to be those darn liberals, it's their fault!
Actually, many people have gotten sick of the liberals who are tolerant until they are disagreed with. They simply don't want to support the politicians who support these types. This is why the Republicans did so well this election with the Senate, House and Presidential races.
Lol.
Rump won an extremely close race, and the R's lost in both the house and senate. Trump's popularity is the lowest of any incoming president, and he's not even done anything yet. Vaktathi said it better than I can, but this was a populist wave, not a "those darn liberals" wave.
Relapse wrote: The actions of these people demonstrate why Trump won.
I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him. It couldn't possibly be the anti-intellectualism fostered by the American right. Or the continual demonization of government at all levels. Or the way nationalism is presented as the only way forward, all others who dare question being deemed "unpatriotic". No it has to be those darn liberals, it's their fault!
Actually, many people have gotten sick of the liberals who are tolerant until they are disagreed with. They simply don't want to support the politicians who support these types. This is why the Republicans did so well this election with the Senate, House and Presidential races.
you're confusing the people doing silly stuff in the streets with "liberals" or whatever as a monolithic group.
Having experienced the Portland events of a few weeks ago, the people causing issues there were mostly just there because it was an excuse to to naughty things, not part of the organized protest group for the most part. The kids from under the Burnside bridge were just looking for an excuse to trash the Pearl district
Besides, if we're talking people doing silly stuff under the cover of politics, a year ago we were talking about those fine patriots from Idaho and Nevada making their stand against Federal aggression by taking over and trashing an Oregon bird refuge...
The tension on all sides has ratcheted up and all sides are doing increasingly stupid things.
Relapse wrote: The actions of these people demonstrate why Trump won.
I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him. It couldn't possibly be the anti-intellectualism fostered by the American right. Or the continual demonization of government at all levels. Or the way nationalism is presented as the only way forward, all others who dare question being deemed "unpatriotic". No it has to be those darn liberals, it's their fault!
Actually, many people have gotten sick of the liberals who are tolerant until they are disagreed with. They simply don't want to support the politicians who support these types. This is why the Republicans did so well this election with the Senate, House and Presidential races.
Lol.
Rump won an extremely close race, and the R's lost in both the house and senate. Trump's popularity is the lowest of any incoming president, and he's not even done anything yet. Vaktathi said it better than I can, but this was a populist wave, not a "those darn liberals" wave.
As it stands, it's straight up Republican control.
Relapse wrote: The actions of these people demonstrate why Trump won.
I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him. It couldn't possibly be the anti-intellectualism fostered by the American right. Or the continual demonization of government at all levels. Or the way nationalism is presented as the only way forward, all others who dare question being deemed "unpatriotic". No it has to be those darn liberals, it's their fault!
Actually, many people have gotten sick of the liberals who are tolerant until they are disagreed with. They simply don't want to support the politicians who support these types. This is why the Republicans did so well this election with the Senate, House and Presidential races.
If that's genuinely true, that a majority of R voters actually voted for Drumpf out of some ridiculous sense of "feth you libtards" then I suggest y'all get that SkyNet running toot sweet, as y'all obviously can't handle the big boy responsibility of voting.
Relapse wrote: The actions of these people demonstrate why Trump won.
I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him. It couldn't possibly be the anti-intellectualism fostered by the American right. Or the continual demonization of government at all levels. Or the way nationalism is presented as the only way forward, all others who dare question being deemed "unpatriotic". No it has to be those darn liberals, it's their fault!
Actually, many people have gotten sick of the liberals who are tolerant until they are disagreed with. They simply don't want to support the politicians who support these types. This is why the Republicans did so well this election with the Senate, House and Presidential races.
Lol.
Rump won an extremely close race, and the R's lost in both the house and senate. Trump's popularity is the lowest of any incoming president, and he's not even done anything yet. Vaktathi said it better than I can, but this was a populist wave, not a "those darn liberals" wave.
As it stands, it's straight up Republican control.
Which is different to what you said, now isn't it?
Relapse wrote: The actions of these people demonstrate why Trump won.
I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him. It couldn't possibly be the anti-intellectualism fostered by the American right. Or the continual demonization of government at all levels. Or the way nationalism is presented as the only way forward, all others who dare question being deemed "unpatriotic". No it has to be those darn liberals, it's their fault!
Actually, many people have gotten sick of the liberals who are tolerant until they are disagreed with. They simply don't want to support the politicians who support these types. This is why the Republicans did so well this election with the Senate, House and Presidential races.
Lol.
Rump won an extremely close race, and the R's lost in both the house and senate. Trump's popularity is the lowest of any incoming president, and he's not even done anything yet. Vaktathi said it better than I can, but this was a populist wave, not a "those darn liberals" wave.
As it stands, it's straight up Republican control.
Which is different to what you said, now isn't it?
Not at all, unless you count a party controlling the House, Senate, and office of the President as doing badly.
Not at all, unless you count a party controlling the House, Senate, and office of the President as doing badly.
I don't count loosing seats during a time when the non-incumbent party in the white-house tends to do well historically as "did well". Nor is it a repudiation of "those darn liberals".
Not at all, unless you count a party controlling the House, Senate, and office of the President as doing badly.
I don't count loosing seats during a time when the non-incumbent party in the white-house tends to do well historically as "did well". Nor is it a repudiation of "those darn liberals".
However you view it, it's going to be an interesting next couple of years, for good or ill. The Supreme Court could end up becoming quit conservative.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Rump won an extremely close race, and the R's lost in both the house and senate.
They were expected to lose control of the Senate and have a significantly narrower margin in the House. They also picked up two Govenorships and made significant gains in State legislatures. Still, nice try at spinning this election as a loss for the Republicans.
Relapse wrote: The Supreme Court could end up becoming quit conservative.
Justice Ginsberg is going to live forever. She'll be like Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies, sitting up on the bench knitting away while the other eight Justices hear the case.
Not at all, unless you count a party controlling the House, Senate, and office of the President as doing badly.
I don't count loosing seats during a time when the non-incumbent party in the white-house tends to do well historically as "did well". Nor is it a repudiation of "those darn liberals".
However you view it, it's going to be an interesting next couple of years, for good or ill. The Supreme Court could end up becoming quit conservative.
I doubt it. The only liberal justice who is at all old is RBG, and she'll hold on with pure determination before she's replace with an anti-abortion judge. Remember, most justices retire, and I seriously any of the liberal/moderate leaning ones will trust Trump with a replacement (a man who has held views apposed to pretty much every right we have). Scalia was a shock to everybody and he was not exactly the picture of elderly health.
Relapse wrote: The actions of these people demonstrate why Trump won.
I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him. It couldn't possibly be the anti-intellectualism fostered by the American right. Or the continual demonization of government at all levels. Or the way nationalism is presented as the only way forward, all others who dare question being deemed "unpatriotic". No it has to be those darn liberals, it's their fault!
Actually, many people have gotten sick of the liberals who are tolerant until they are disagreed with. They simply don't want to support the politicians who support these types. This is why the Republicans did so well this election with the Senate, House and Presidential races.
If that's genuinely true, that a majority of R voters actually voted for Drumpf out of some ridiculous sense of "feth you libtards" then I suggest y'all get that SkyNet running toot sweet, as y'all obviously can't handle the big boy responsibility of voting.
This is an oversimplification. It's not just "feth you", its that people genuinely did not want to live in the society that they perceive that progressives (distinct from "classical liberals") are trying to create. That's a big difference than just a simple "feth you".
Progressives did much of this to themselves...safe spaces, trigger warnings, 31 genders, de-platforming speakers for differing ideas, and constant accusations of this or that -ism leveled against well meaning people.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Rump won an extremely close race, and the R's lost in both the house and senate.
They were expected to lose control of the Senate and have a significantly narrower margin in the House. They also picked up two Govenorships and made significant gains in State legislatures. Still, nice try at spinning this election as a loss for the Republicans.
Where exactly did I say this was a "loss" for the republican party? I'm sure you have the quote.
This is an oversimplification. It's not just "feth you", its that people genuinely did not want to live in the society that they perceive that progressives (distinct from "classical liberals") are trying to create. That's a big difference than just a simple "feth you".
Progressives did much of this to themselves...safe spaces, trigger warnings, 31 genders, de-platforming speakers for differing ideas, and constant accusations of this or that -ism leveled against well meaning people.
The irony of people complaining aobut "safe spaces" while similatiously misunderstanding what they are and what they do, and then trying to turn the entire country into a "safe space" will never cease to amuse me.
jasper76 wrote: safe spaces, trigger warnings, 31 genders, de-platforming speakers for differing ideas, and constant accusations of this or that -ism leveled against well meaning people.
I honestly find this entire list hilarious.
So if I understand this correctly, Trump was elected because some people need a space safe from safe spaces, are triggered by trigger warnings, can't count past 2 genders, and decided the best solution to people being "de-platformed" by private entities for saying stupid things is to de-platform not the people who run those entities but the people who voiced disagreement with differing ideas? And in response to "constant accusations of this or that -ism" these same persons have assumed that the people the accusations were leveled at were just well meaning? Sorry but I pay attention to the news and more than a fair number of the "de-platformed" were not remotely well-meaning. I feel like this entire narrative of events needs to be referenced in the dictionary under hypocrisy.
The attitude of 'those darn liberals' hasn't been working out for the GOP, unless you really feel like Trump is a good candidate. But if the same people exclaing that position want to double down on it then by all means do so. I think it's an irrational, unjustified viewpoint and I think the GOP is going to crash and burn while refusing to accept any responsibility for the outcome. But I could be wrong. The point is, if you blame the liberals and it isn't actually the liberals at fault then the results aren't going to be to your liking. The GOP is eating a dish of their own making either way, we'll be front and center to see how palatable it is.
jasper76 wrote: Progressives did much of this to themselves...safe spaces, trigger warnings, 31 genders, de-platforming speakers for differing ideas, and constant accusations of this or that -ism leveled against well meaning people.
All of which are wildly exaggerated by conservatives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: The irony of people complaining aobut "safe spaces" while similatiously misunderstanding what they are and what they do, and then trying to turn the entire country into a "safe space" will never cease to amuse me.
Remember, when conservatives want safe spaces it's called "freedom of speech".
It is what it is. People don't like that stuff, that's where they saw the country headed under Democratic leadership, so they voted against it.
Definitely not saying this was the only reason people voted for Trump, but it was definitely a factor.
As to whether oppoisitin to my laundry list ends up being hypocritical, I don't particularly care.
From my perspective, things like trigger warnings and safe spaces are antithetical to what I perceive as the function of higher education. De-platforming speakers obviously has free speech implication, and I am pretty much a free speech absolutist.
Relapse wrote: The actions of these people demonstrate why Trump won.
I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him. It couldn't possibly be the anti-intellectualism fostered by the American right. Or the continual demonization of government at all levels. Or the way nationalism is presented as the only way forward, all others who dare question being deemed "unpatriotic". No it has to be those darn liberals, it's their fault!
Actually, many people have gotten sick of the liberals who are tolerant until they are disagreed with. They simply don't want to support the politicians who support these types. This is why the Republicans did so well this election with the Senate, House and Presidential races.
If that's genuinely true, that a majority of R voters actually voted for Drumpf out of some ridiculous sense of "feth you libtards" then I suggest y'all get that SkyNet running toot sweet, as y'all obviously can't handle the big boy responsibility of voting.
This is an oversimplification. It's not just "feth you", its that people genuinely did not want to live in the society that they perceive that progressives (distinct from "classical liberals") are trying to create. That's a big difference than just a simple "feth you".
Progressives did much of this to themselves...safe spaces, trigger warnings, 31 genders, de-platforming speakers for differing ideas, and constant accusations of this or that -ism leveled against well meaning people.
Oh, ok. Some ridiculous "feth you libtard strawman" then.
jasper76 wrote: It is what it is. People don't like that stuff, that's where they saw the country headed under Democratic leadership, so they voted against it.
Definitely not saying this was the only reason people voted for Trump, but it was definitely a factor.
Based on exit polling, where the main concerns were economic and safety, I'd say it was a pretty insignificant factor.
As to whether oppoisitin to my laundry list ends up being hypocritical, I don't particularly care.
Then why say them?
From my perspective, things like trigger warnings and safe spaces are antithetical to what I perceive as the function of higher education.
Than you obviously don't actually know what they are. But, then again, most people who complain about them don't.
De-platforming speakers obviously has free speech implication, and I am pretty much a free speech absolutist.
Firing people for saying racist things (the most common example) had nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with profit and PR.
jasper76 wrote: It is what it is. People don't like that stuff, that's where they saw the country headed under Democratic leadership, so they voted against it.
Definitely not saying this was the only reason people voted for Trump, but it was definitely a factor.
1. Based on exit polling, where the main concerns were economic and safety, I'd say it was a pretty insignificant factor.
As to whether oppoisitin to my laundry list ends up being hypocritical, I don't particularly care.
2. Then why say them?
From my perspective, things like trigger warnings and safe spaces are antithetical to what I perceive as the function of higher education.
3. Than you obviously don't actually know what they are. But, then again, most people who complain about them don't.
De-platforming speakers obviously has free speech implication, and I am pretty much a free speech absolutist.
4. Firing people for saying racist things (the most common example) had nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with profit and PR.
1. Conservatives are quite openly opposed to progressive culture. I don't personally think its an insignificant part of their motives, according to what they themselves have been saying. Which is not to say they didn't think the economy was the #1 issue.
2. Because I perceive some of these issues to be manufactured, and some to even be pernicious.
3. I'll just skip over your rude assumptions here.
4. I was more talking about guest speakers at universities being de-platformed. Some college banned Richard Dawkins, protestors showing up to silence Milo Whats-His-Name, etc.
jasper76 wrote: People don't like that stuff, that's where they saw the country headed under Democratic leadership, so they voted against it.
Really? Cause HRC might have lost, but she got more votes. It would be more accurate to say "some people don't like that stuff." The continued interpretation of an electoral college win that hung on extremely close races (seriously 100,000 people decided the outcome...) as some kind of sweeping rejection of the "direction of the country" makes no sense what-so-ever. The race was close enough you could chalk the final outcome up to a whim of the universe.
Definitely not saying this was the only reason people voted for Trump, but it was definitely a factor.
I would challenge that it's such a small factor it isn't particularly relevant. I think the biggest reason Trump won is a very well targeted campaign. Trump managed to suppress his opponents voter base*, call out the Democratic party fairly accurately for not advancing social causes as much as it talked about them (something that became starkly represented by the scandal between the DNC and Bernie Sanders), and simultaneously managed to drum up a lot of people who have probably not been regular voters in the past by presenting a laundry list of ideas targeted to appeal to them. In response HRC's campaign played a completely defensive game, gave him mountains of their own air time and publicity, and didn't get out their own candidate's message.
Trump won because he somehow managed to organize an extremely well targeted campaign that took advantage of the electorate, while the Clinton campaign utterly failed to inspire anyone. It's not a product of anything the liberals specifically did, but rather an outcome of the current electoral makeup of the county. Honestly I'd bet there's a degree of forgone conclusion involved as well. How many people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and Ohio stayed home thinking Hillary Clinton's win was assured? Probably more than a few, and in any other election their staying home probably wouldn't have effected the outcome much, but in this race?
*by this I mean he convinced them that voting for HRC wouldn't get them anywhere not that any force was involved. Trump made a lot of targeted statements to inner city and working class Democrats that I think were both accurate, and specifically said not to convince them to vote for him but to call attention to how little they'd gain voting for his opponent. The goal of saying "why not give me a chance" to African American communities wasn't to get those groups to actually give him a chance. The goal was to make them wonder why they should bother voting for the same party that generally does little for them at all.
As to whether oppoisitin to my laundry list ends up being hypocritical, I don't particularly care.
Know what, I can respect that.
From my perspective, things like trigger warnings and safe spaces are antithetical to what I perceive the function of higher education. De-platforming speakers obviously has free speech implication, and I am pretty much a free speech absolutist.
I've lived on college campuses, or near them, for the better part of the last ten years. I have never seen these safe spaces people are convinced permeate higher education. I've never seen trigger warnings anywhere but on Tumblr. I have in fact seen far more complaints about safe spaces and trigger warnings than I have seen actual safe spaces* and trigger warnings.
*I'm purposefully excluding things like AA, self-help groups, and group therapy. I have seen them labeled as "safe spaces", but they don't seem to be the kind of things people who complain about safe spaces are complaining about. I'm just assuming no one in their right mind is opposed to a self-help group for battered women working through their trauma, or addicts helping to keep each other clean disallowing the presence of attitudes completely counter-productive to the purpose of the meeting.
jasper76 wrote: 4. I was more talking about guest speakers at universities being de-platformed. Some college banned Richard Dawkins, protestors showing up to silence Milo Whats-His-Name, etc.
And the fact that conservatives consider this a reason to vote for Trump shows how dysfunctional the whole conservative side is. Freedom of speech does not mean the right to have a university host you as a speaker, and the "OMG THEY DIDNT INVITE MY FAVORITE BESTEST FRIEND EVAR TO SPEAK" outrage from conservatives is just plain ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: It is what it is. People don't like that stuff, that's where they saw the country headed under Democratic leadership, so they voted against it.
This isn't saying good things about the level of awareness and intelligence of Trump voters then, given that all the safe spaces/trigger warnings/etc have to do with private citizens making choices about what rules to set for their personal property, not government policy. Voting for Trump isn't going to make any of that stuff change.
From my perspective, things like trigger warnings and safe spaces are antithetical to what I perceive as the function of higher education.
And just what function is that? Offending people in some bizarre masochistic ritual of seeing how much of a everyone can be before students drop out?
De-platforming speakers obviously has free speech implication, and I am pretty much a free speech absolutist.
How can you be a free speech absolutist if you don't support the right to say "nah, we don't feel like inviting you"?
So Paul Ryan is talking about his big plan to replace Obamacare. Instead of subsidies for insurance he want tax credits. Ryan seemed oblivious that the subsidies in ACA are tax credits. This is meant to be the smart guy in the Republican party everyone. Holy fething gak.
Any how, the other big idea is to get rid of the income section of the subsidy. So assuming the overall subsidy total is the same, what Ryan is planning is to massively reduce the subsidy for low income people in order to give money to high income earners.
Good job white working class, once again you voted to have less money so wealthy people can have more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him.
The party of personal responsibility won't even take responsibility for the man they nominated and elected.
jasper76 wrote: 4. I was more talking about guest speakers at universities being de-platformed. Some college banned Richard Dawkins, protestors showing up to silence Milo Whats-His-Name, etc.
And the fact that conservatives consider this a reason to vote for Trump shows how dysfunctional the whole conservative side is. Freedom of speech does not mean the right to have a university host you as a speaker, and the "OMG THEY DIDNT INVITE MY FAVORITE BESTEST FRIEND EVAR TO SPEAK" outrage from conservatives is just plain ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: It is what it is. People don't like that stuff, that's where they saw the country headed under Democratic leadership, so they voted against it.
This isn't saying good things about the level of awareness and intelligence of Trump voters then, given that all the safe spaces/trigger warnings/etc have to do with private citizens making choices about what rules to set for their personal property, not government policy. Voting for Trump isn't going to make any of that stuff change.
From my perspective, things like trigger warnings and safe spaces are antithetical to what I perceive as the function of higher education.
And just what function is that? Offending people in some bizarre masochistic ritual of seeing how much of a everyone can be before students drop out?
De-platforming speakers obviously has free speech implication, and I am pretty much a free speech absolutist.
How can you be a free speech absolutist if you don't support the right to say "nah, we don't feel like inviting you"?
It's hard to argue that conservatives are dysfunctional when they just won power over all branches of our federal government.
And I'm not talking about people not inviting people to speak. I'm talking about when they are invited to speak, and some uprising from progressive students and faculty who can't stand the idea of opposing viewpoints get the speaker shut down after they were invited (Richards Dawkins). Or having students from a conservative group invite a conservative speaker to an event, and in come progressive bullies to physically shut it down (Milo Whatever)
I don't question these institutions right to hire and fire whoever they want, but I don't personally find recent actions to be conducive to free speech.
As for conservative opposition to progressive culture in general, it is what it is. Whether it's wise or unwise or hypocritical or whatever, it exists and I seriously doubt it's going away any time soon.
jasper76 wrote: It's hard to argue that conservatives are dysfunctional when they just won power over all branches of our federal government.
They won because a lot of voters are part of the dysfunctional mess, combined with the usual alternating cycles of power for the two parties favoring the republicans. It remains to be seen how long their hold on power lasts now that they actually have to govern instead of screaming "OBAMA SUCKS REPEAL OBAMA" at their rabid hordes, and all the promises they made during the campaign season are revealed to be blatant lies.
And I'm not talking about people not inviting people to speak. I'm talking about when they are invited to speak, and some uprising from progressive students and faculty who can't stand the idea of opposing viewpoints get the speaker shut down after they were invited (Richards Dawkins). Or having students from a conservative group invite a conservative speaker to an event, and in come progressive bullies to physically shut it down (Milo Whatever)
Sounds like you aren't such a free-speech absolutist after all, given these complaints about people exercising their right to speak and objecting to conservative speakers.
I don't question these institutions right to hire and fire whoever they want, but I don't personally find recent actions to be conducive to free speech.
That's because you don't understand what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech means that the government can not censor you or punish you for speaking. It does NOT mean that private organizations (universities, forums, social media companies, etc) have to provide you with a platform to speak from, or can't change their minds about doing so once they give you an invitation. Milo and Dawkins have not lost any right to speak just because a particular university didn't provide them with an audience.
As for conservative opposition to progressive culture in general, it is what it is. Whether it's wise or unwise or hypocritical or whatever, it exists and I seriously doubt it's going away any time soon.
It exists, I acknowledge this. However, it's a sign of the sheer lunacy of a lot of conservative voters that the reaction to "OMG SOMEONE IS WRONG ON TUMBLR!!!!" is "vote for the guy who is going to screw you over so he can give all his rich friends more money".
It exists, I acknowledge this. However, it's a sign of the sheer lunacy of a lot of conservative voters that the reaction to "OMG SOMEONE IS WRONG ON TUMBLR!!!!" is "vote for the guy who is going to screw you over so he can give all his rich friends more money".
This is probably one of the most amusing, and depressingly accurate, metaphors for...more than a few people I know or am related to
jasper76 wrote: It's hard to argue that conservatives are dysfunctional when they just won power over all branches of our federal government.
They won because a lot of voters are part of the dysfunctional mess, combined with the usual alternating cycles of power for the two parties favoring the republicans. It remains to be seen how long their hold on power lasts now that they actually have to govern instead of screaming "OBAMA SUCKS REPEAL OBAMA" at their rabid hordes, and all the promises they made during the campaign season are revealed to be blatant lies.
And I'm not talking about people not inviting people to speak. I'm talking about when they are invited to speak, and some uprising from progressive students and faculty who can't stand the idea of opposing viewpoints get the speaker shut down after they were invited (Richards Dawkins). Or having students from a conservative group invite a conservative speaker to an event, and in come progressive bullies to physically shut it down (Milo Whatever)
Sounds like you aren't such a free-speech absolutist after all, given these complaints about people exercising their right to speak and objecting to conservative speakers.
I don't question these institutions right to hire and fire whoever they want, but I don't personally find recent actions to be conducive to free speech.
That's because you don't understand what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech means that the government can not censor you or punish you for speaking. It does NOT mean that private organizations (universities, forums, social media companies, etc) have to provide you with a platform to speak from, or can't change their minds about doing so once they give you an invitation. Milo and Dawkins have not lost any right to speak just because a particular university didn't provide them with an audience.
As for conservative opposition to progressive culture in general, it is what it is. Whether it's wise or unwise or hypocritical or whatever, it exists and I seriously doubt it's going away any time soon.
It exists, I acknowledge this. However, it's a sign of the sheer lunacy of a lot of conservative voters that the reaction to "OMG SOMEONE IS WRONG ON TUMBLR!!!!" is "vote for the guy who is going to screw you over so he can give all his rich friends more money".
Listen, if you want universities to be echo chambers where ideas opposed to progressive culture are supressed, more power to you I suppose. I do not agree, and I don't think these behaviors we've been discussing foster much respect for free speech amongst students, and in fact do the opposite.
I don't know what TUMBLR is. I assume from context it's a progressive website.
Believe it or not, it's possible for someone to just disagree with progressivism and vote according to their opinions, and not be a lunatic.
jasper76 wrote: Listen, if you want universities to be echo chambers where ideas opposed to progressive culture are supressed, more power to you I suppose.
I said no such thing. I simply pointed out that your definition of "free speech" is incorrect. Making universities progressive echo chambers is not a violation of free speech. Making universities conservative echo chambers is not a violation of free speech.
And, in any case, this "suppression" is highly overstated. In an official policy context most of the time it consists of little more than saying "donkey-caves are not welcome here", and students criticizing their fellow students have no power to force anyone to comply with their demands.
I do not agree, and I don't think these behaviors we've been discussing foster much respect for free speech amongst students, and in fact do the opposite.
That's because your definition of "free speech" has nothing to do with reality.
I don't know what TUMBLR is. I assume from context it's a progressive website.
It's a social media website with a lot of progressive users. Conservatives have a habit of pulling quotes from some random user's posts, often from someone with single-digit readers and no meaningful power or influence, as a supposed sign of everything wrong with the world.
Believe it or not, it's possible for someone to just disagree with progressivism and vote according to their opinions, and not be a lunatic.
I would dispute that in a lot of cases. And it's certainly not possible to go from "SOMEONE ON TUMBLR WANTS TRIGGER WARNINGS ON TUMBLR POSTS" to "elect Trump" without being severely out of touch with reality. Trump has no power to change any of these things, so voting for him as a result of disliking those elements of "progressive culture" is demonstrating, at best, a complete lack of understanding of how the US government works.
TUMBLR is basically a microblogging site that has garnered a reputation amongst some groups, fairly or unfairly, as the Stormfront equivalent of the left. That's where you'll find the two or three actual nutzos claiming to be trigender-pyrofoxes from forest-rainbow world who *need* to clarify your pronouns and think all "cis het people" should die, but most of their stuff is really totally normal and the truly crazy stuff really is nowhere near as big as some make it out to be, though it does exist.
@Peregrine: Do you think if a conservative speaker is invited to campus, and progressives crowd the stage, intimidate the speaker was th threats of violence, and shut down his platform is conducive to the principal of free speech? If you think so, I respectfullby disagree. I find it rather chilling, bordering on fascistic.
Your losing me with the TUMBLR stuff. I never made a connection between TUMBLR and Trump voters. The main point I was trying to make is lots of Trump voters are turned off by progressive culture, and that was part of the dynamic as to why some people chose to vote for Trump, or against Clinton.
I'd also add that your choice of incendiary words like "lunacy" and phrases like "severely out of touch with reality" aren't going to win over too many conservatives, but perhaps you are not interested in winning over conservatives.
jasper76 wrote: So you think if a conservative speaker is invited to campus, and progressives crowd the stage, intimidate the speaker was th threats of violence, and shut down his platform is conducive to the principal of free speech? If you think so, I respectfullby disagree. I find it rather chilling, bordering on fascistic.
Threatening violence is a criminal act and should be punished appropriately. However, that's not what we're talking about in most cases.
The main point I was trying to make is lots of Trump voters are turned off by progressive culture, and that was part of the dynamic as to why some people chose to vote for Trump, or against Clinton.
Which, as I said, is not a reasonable thing to do. Neither Clinton nor Trump have any power to change these things, so allowing a dislike for trigger warnings/safe spaces/etc to influence your voting choices is a completely irrational act. It's just mindless "RAR TUMBLR BAD" rage overcoming rational choices about government policy, and a sign that something is badly wrong with US conservatives if it actually happened at any meaningful rate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I'd also add that your choice of words like "lunacy" and phrases like "out of touch with reality" aren't going to win over too many conservatives, but perhaps you are not interested in winning over conservatives.
I'm not interested in winning over the people those words apply to because nothing is going to win them over, just like I don't have any interest in being careful not to hurt a KKK member's delicate feelings by calling them a racist. The fact that the truth hurts and people would rather continue being wrong than admit it does not make the truth any less true.
From what I get from conservatives, many believe that the Democrats have become champions of and advocates for progressive culture. If they oppose that culture, I don't think ots unreasonable to vote against its proponents.
Incidentally, I'm only using the phrase "progressive culture" to distinguish the modern left from classical liberalism. I'm happy just to use progtessivism if it comes across better.
I'm not interested in winning over the people those words apply to because nothing is going to win them over, just like I don't have any interest in being careful not to hurt a KKK member's delicate feelings by calling them a racist. The fact that the truth hurts and people would rather continue being wrong than admit it does not make the truth any less true.
jasper76 wrote: From what I get from conservatives, many believe that the Democrats have become champions of and advocates for progressive culture.
And this is why they are not dealing with reality. The democrats have zero power to influence things like trigger warnings/safe spaces/etc because those things are done by private organizations, not by government mandate. Voting against democrats is not going to stop those aspects of "progressive culture" in any way. Anyone who believes otherwise is severely limited in their understanding of how the US government works.
jasper76 wrote: From what I get from conservatives, many believe that the Democrats have become champions of and advocates for progressive culture.
And this is why they are not dealing with reality. The democrats have zero power to influence things like trigger warnings/safe spaces/etc because those things are done by private organizations, not by government mandate. Voting against democrats is not going to stop those aspects of "progressive culture" in any way. Anyone who believes otherwise is severely limited in their understanding of how the US government works.
Perhaps your correct that voting in Trump will have no effect on the current state of progressivism in education. Maybe being in charge of the Department of Education could have some effect, but I honestly don't know enough about what DoEd is all about. Progressivism is more than just education, though. Wealth redistribution, legal and illegal immigration, abortion, freedom of religion,vetc are all hot button issues with conservatives as well, and ones that certainly can be affected by the new administration and the new Congress.
4. I was more talking about guest speakers at universities being de-platformed. Some college banned Richard Dawkins, protestors showing up to silence Milo Whats-His-Name, etc.
Dawkins goes off the deep end about supporting christian militias to wipe the muslims out in Africa and Yiannopoulus starts harrassment drives against people and outs trans people with name and picture in public speeches to mock them. That's why those guys are unpopular.
jasper76 wrote: Maybe being in charge of the Department of Education could have some effect, but I honestly don't know enough about what DoEd is all about.
It can't change anything here. There is no way the federal government is going to impose a policy of "you must invite conservative speakers" on state-owned or private schools.
Affirmative action
Ah yes, I'll grant that this is something that electing Trump can limit, but the fact that conservatives care so much about ending it (especially with no alternative to replace it) doesn't say good things about them.
wealth redistribution
You mean like taxing ordinary people to pay for huge gifts to the companies owned by major campaign donors? Or is wealth redistribution only a problem when it's going to help the poor?
legal and illegal immigration
Also doesn't say good things about conservatives. And it's not going to happen, in any case. Too much money is at stake with companies that depend on the labor of illegal immigrants. The wall is not going to be built, mass deportations are not going to happen (at least beyond a token attempt to generate publicity), and anyone who voted for Trump thinking that he is going to stop illegal immigration is not dealing with reality. Trump is going to make a big show of "build the wall", then listen to his campaign donors, drop the subject, and find a way to blame the democrats for it.
4. I was more talking about guest speakers at universities being de-platformed. Some college banned Richard Dawkins, protestors showing up to silence Milo Whats-His-Name, etc.
Dawkins goes off the deep end about supporting christian militias to wipe the muslims out in Africa.
Source please?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Peregrine: I feel like you are constantly putting me in the position of defending conservatives and their ideas. But I'm not a conservative, so it's not my place to argue the merits of their positions, so I'm not biting anymore.
Yeah, when we're talking actual professional trolls, it's hard to see there being an issue. A Yiannopoulos or Coulter isn't really showing up somewhere to have an honest academic debate over political philosophy and policy, they're there to rile up a gak storm. Maybe it's internal bias, but I honestly cannot think of an equivalent individual on the other side of the political spectrum to a Yiannopoulos.
jasper76 wrote: @Peregrine: I feel like you are constantly putting me in the position of defending conservatives and their ideas.
You're the one who started off by saying that conservatives are being reasonable in voting for Trump because of trigger warnings/safe spaces/etc. If you want to concede that conservatives are not reasonable and stop defending them I'll gladly take that concession.
jasper76 wrote: @Peregrine: I feel like you are constantly putting me in the position of defending conservatives and their ideas.
You're the one who started off by saying that conservatives are being reasonable in voting for Trump because of trigger warnings/safe spaces/etc. If you want to concede that conservatives are not reasonable and stop defending them I'll gladly take that concession.
I actually started off by saying that Trump voters voting purely out of "feth you libtards" was an oversimplification...but whatever.
Mitochondria wrote: I don't know where anyone gets the idea that because something is repealed it must be replaced.
Sometimes you just need to get rid of the garbage.
And sometimes the thing being repealed is arguably flawed, but accomplishes a necessary goal. In that case you can repeal the thing, but you need to have an alternative to replace it.
sebster wrote: So Paul Ryan is talking about his big plan to replace Obamacare. Instead of subsidies for insurance he want tax credits. Ryan seemed oblivious that the subsidies in ACA are tax credits. This is meant to be the smart guy in the Republican party everyone. Holy fething gak.
Any how, the other big idea is to get rid of the income section of the subsidy. So assuming the overall subsidy total is the same, what Ryan is planning is to massively reduce the subsidy for low income people in order to give money to high income earners.
Good job white working class, once again you voted to have less money so wealthy people can have more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him.
The party of personal responsibility won't even take responsibility for the man they nominated and elected.
sebster wrote: So Paul Ryan is talking about his big plan to replace Obamacare. Instead of subsidies for insurance he want tax credits. Ryan seemed oblivious that the subsidies in ACA are tax credits. This is meant to be the smart guy in the Republican party everyone. Holy fething gak.
Any how, the other big idea is to get rid of the income section of the subsidy. So assuming the overall subsidy total is the same, what Ryan is planning is to massively reduce the subsidy for low income people in order to give money to high income earners.
Good job white working class, once again you voted to have less money so wealthy people can have more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him.
The party of personal responsibility won't even take responsibility for the man they nominated and elected.
Well, looks like I might loose my health care.
Thank god im healthy and the worst thing I have is a slight knee problem.
But atleast people that make more than enough money to get by dont have to pay their fair share.
So what I got is that they made one cost go down by splitting it into two costs, which are distributed in a manner that offers less aid to those who need it most, but that first number went down so its a win!
Just been revisiting some of the stuff Trump said yesterday.
His goal to tackle extreme Islamist terrorists gets no argument from me, but I wonder how Trump will react when one of his advisors briefs him about Saudi Arabia...
And his call to bring the jobs back home is another goal that gets no argument from me, but having read and watched a ton of stuff about robots and automation, and its effects on society, those jobs are unlikely to ever come back...
His goal to tackle extreme Islamist terrorists gets no argument from me, but I wonder how Trump will react when one of his advisors briefs him about Saudi Arabia...
Too bad his policies will result in opposite result. Extreme terrorism will just increase. He's not going to fix problem. He's going to fuel more of them. Just what the world needs...More extremists...
The more he acts the more crap comes out. One would assume eventually he couldn't make things worse but so far every action he does makes it even worse.
godardc wrote: I am so glad Trump won, so happy that the so called leftist «progressive», «defender of the free speech» show, at last, their true nature of fascism.
Ah yes, the "fascism" that means "anything I don't like", not anything to do with actual fascism.
Don't tell that something is impossible until it has been tried.
New president, new way, maybe new results.
Do you have any specific reasons for why Trump might get new (and better) results, or just wishful thinking that everything will magically turn out ok?
His goal to tackle extreme Islamist terrorists gets no argument from me, but I wonder how Trump will react when one of his advisors briefs him about Saudi Arabia...
Too bad his policies will result in opposite result. Extreme terrorism will just increase. He's not going to fix problem. He's going to fuel more of them. Just what the world needs...More extremists...
The more he acts the more crap comes out. One would assume eventually he couldn't make things worse but so far every action he does makes it even worse.
I'm hoping that we'll all be pleasantly surprised with some pragmatic moves.
Still, at least here in Britain, we have a new US Ambassador - the guy that owns the New York Giants.
No word on his suitability when it comes to dealing with foreign relations, though.
Still, as the UK is increasingly hell bent on keeping its nose as far as possible up America's rear as it possibly can, I suppose it's one of the 'easier' ambassador posts.
What did you think about Jackie Evancho's performance singing your national anthem ? I don't know how it is supposed to be singged, but I see a lot of people telling it was bad, and a lot of others people telling it was great...
I enjoyed it, but I rarely heard your anthem so I can't tell if it was good or not.
godardc wrote: I am so glad Trump won, so happy that the so called leftist «progressive», «defender of the free speech» show, at last, their true nature of fascism.
Ah yes, the "fascism" that means "anything I don't like", not anything to do with actual fascism.
Don't tell that something is impossible until it has been tried.
New president, new way, maybe new results.
Do you have any specific reasons for why Trump might get new (and better) results, or just wishful thinking that everything will magically turn out ok?
That's where you are wrong: I think it is the first time I say someone is fascist, and this is because I'm open minded and I usually don't hate people who disagree with me, unlike the leftists.
As you can see, they have a childish behaviour, laughing at TRUMP and telling him to "respect the democracy" and, as soon as they lost, they began to cry like babies and to attack the poor TRUMP supporters who just support democracy.
And they call them, the TRUMP supporter, fascists !
Why ? Because they disagree with them.
I'm not calling fascist someone with who I disagree, but people holding "white live matter too much" or punching Richard Spencer or rioting. This people aren't democratics at all and they truly think their idea are worth more than mine.
And that's not correct.
godardc wrote: Extreme terrorism will increase ? You mean, just like with obama ? The more useless president I have ever seen ?
You're probably thinking of the Bush administration, the one that really caused no end of trouble in the ME.
You mean, the one that brought Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq ? The one that put the terrorists in jail in Guantanamo Bay ? When America and the whole free world was attacked in the 9/11 ?
Bush defended his country, and defended the whole world, in fact, and for this I will always be thankful to him
And he made the world safer. Safer, yes.
Obama ? War everywhere, everywhen. Even Iraqi, that Bush spend so many time to help, was invaded by isis.... And now what ? After 8 years, there are still terrorists everywere, and in more countries than before.
8 years for nothing. He was elected because he was black, and he did nothing more than smiling and being "cool". Great..
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to the whole world. Saddam was a threat to Iraqis, certainly, and possibly to his neighbours but on the world stage he was a nobody since the first Gulf war, until Bush decided to elevate him to the position of Satan based on lies. And if Saddam wasn't removed then it is possible ISIS would not exist as a large portion of its leadership is ex-members of Saddams government and military.
Also, that violence in Iraq was due to Bush (and Blair) fething up the post invasion planning which left a weak government and badly lead and prepared military which was unable to adequately react to ISIS.
How do you propose was Obama meant to prevent the rise of ISIS? Should he have sent ground troops into Libya and Syria to topple their governments and begin a years long occupation, too? Yes the Middle East is currently a mess but that is not Obama's doing. The clue is in the fact that Syria is in the midst of a civil war, not a foreign invasion. Same went for Libya. The violence in these countries was started by their own citizens and governments.
Oh, and Obama's government actually caught and killed the person responsible for planning 9/11. Bush just killed an unrelated dictator.
godardc wrote: As you can see, they have a childish behaviour, laughing at TRUMP and telling him to "respect the democracy" and, as soon as they lost, they began to cry like babies and to attack the poor TRUMP supporters who just support democracy.
This has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism is a defined political ideology, and it does not have anything to do with "childish laughing at a president".
And they call them, the TRUMP supporter, fascists !
Why ? Because they disagree with them.
No, they call Trump and his supporters fascists because when you look at the definition of "fascism" in the dictionary a lot of what Trump is saying fits. It's not a perfect match, but there's a lot more to it than mere dislike of Trump.
I'm not calling fascist someone with who I disagree, but people holding "white live matter too much" or punching Richard Spencer or rioting.
What does the "black lives matter" movement have to do with fascism? Or punching white supremacists?
This people aren't democratics at all and they truly think their idea are worth more than mine.
And that's not correct.
Everyone thinks their ideas are worth more than the ideas of the people they disagree with. This has nothing to do with fascism.
You mean, the one that brought Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq?
For certain, rather flexible, definitions of "democracy".
The one that put the terrorists in jail in Guantanamo Bay?
For certain, rather flexible, definitions of "terrorists". And I find it interesting that, after all your complaints about "fascists", you're praising an act of right-wing authoritarianism and contempt for the rule of law. I don't know about you, but I think there's a problem when we can imprison people indefinitely without a trial and say "trust us, it's national security" as the only justification.
When America and the whole free world was attacked in the 9/11?
That's a rather dramatic way of looking at things. What exactly is the "free world", and how was it attacked by a single event in the US?
Bush defended his country, and defended the whole world, in fact, and for this I will always be thankful to him
Defended the whole world from what? A terrorist organization that promptly moved out of Afghanistan and set up operations elsewhere as soon as the US invaded? Or from a dictator in Iraq that had no means of attacking anyone outside of his neighbors (and own citizens)?
And he made the world safer. Safer, yes.
That's a rather shaky claim given how much of a disaster the Bush-era wars have been.
Obama ? War everywhere, everywhen. Even Iraqi, that Bush spend so many time to help, was invaded by isis.... And now what ? After 8 years, there are still terrorists everywere, and in more countries than before.
...
You do realize that Bush did effectively nothing to fix Iraq, right? We invaded, destroyed the existing government, and left nothing in its place. There was still active fighting going on when Bush left office, and ISIS (or a similar organization in its place) was almost inevitable as soon as the US left Iraq and stopped its massive (and unsustainable) investment in providing security. It's absolutely insane to blame Obama for not miraculously fixing the complete disaster that Bush left for him, and praise Bush for creating the mess in the first place.
Rosebuddy wrote: Richard Spencer is a nazi. Punching him because of that fact is a hugely antifascist thing to do.
Next he'll be telling us that Georg Elser was a fascist for trying to blow up Hitler (and would have also got Goebbels, Hess, Himmler, Heydrich and others) at a speech. That's censorship!
That's where you are wrong: I think it is the first time I say someone is fascist, and this is because I'm open minded and I usually don't hate people who disagree with me, unlike the leftists.
You made a post, on this forum, where you wanted the EU to just let Syrian refugees drown in the Aegean because you didn't want them in France. Your moral high horse never existed, so I don't know what sort of beast you're currently trying to ride.
Going by what has happened since yesterday the Trump administration will be severely disappointing (no big surprise) and that speech was just mental. I sincerely hope he elections in Germany, France and the Netherlands will not see significant political gains for populists as they have been way too friendly to Trump.
Also Godarc on Obama and ISIS is hilarious, I don't know what info you're working off, but that must have been the "Thanks Obama" that reaches the furthest back in history I have seen. Next thing we know Obama is going to be blamed for not killing Bin Laden sooner, Obama was close to 50, what took him so long
A Town Called Malus wrote: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to the whole world. Saddam was a threat to Iraqis, certainly, and possibly to his neighbours but on the world stage he was a nobody since the first Gulf war, until Bush decided to elevate him to the position of Satan based on lies. And if Saddam wasn't removed then it is possible ISIS would not exist as a large portion of its leadership is ex-members of Saddams government and military.
Also, that violence in Iraq was due to Bush (and Blair) fething up the post invasion planning which left a weak government and badly lead and prepared military which was unable to adequately react to ISIS.
How do you propose was Obama meant to prevent the rise of ISIS? Should he have sent ground troops into Libya and Syria to topple their governments and begin a years long occupation, too? Yes the Middle East is currently a mess but that is not Obama's doing. The clue is in the fact that Syria is in the midst of a civil war, not a foreign invasion. Same went for Libya. The violence in these countries was started by their own citizens and governments.
Oh, and Obama's government actually caught and killed the person responsible for planning 9/11. Bush just killed an unrelated dictator.
I wasn't clear, I'm sorry. I don't think saddam threatened the world, but the terrorists in afghanistan did. So he protected the world not by bringing democracy to iraq but by attacking the terrorists in afghanistan
Bush had troops in Iraq for years, fighting the rebels and helping rebuliding the country. One can hardly say he did nothing. And then, suddenly there was noone anymore, and the terrorists rised and took control of a part of iraq as the iraqi army fleed like cowards. It shouldn't have been tolerated. Nothing to do with Syria: it may have terrorists in syria, but they wouldn't have been so powerful without stealing iraqi weapons, money, and people. And the Victory they had on iraq gave them much needed credit. There would have been terrorists in syria, yes I agree, but not in iraq, and thus the new iraq could have been protected from this mess.
godardc wrote: As you can see, they have a childish behaviour, laughing at TRUMP and telling him to "respect the democracy" and, as soon as they lost, they began to cry like babies and to attack the poor TRUMP supporters who just support democracy.
This has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism is a defined political ideology, and it does not have anything to do with "childish laughing at a president".
And they call them, the TRUMP supporter, fascists ! Why ? Because they disagree with them.
No, they call Trump and his supporters fascists because when you look at the definition of "fascism" in the dictionary a lot of what Trump is saying fits. It's not a perfect match, but there's a lot more to it than mere dislike of Trump.
Now I may be lacking informations, of course, but I don't think TRUMP said he wants a single party, or anything like that. Just a bit more patriotism. How is this bad ? Fascism in a French dictionnary is also this: "Authoritarian, arbitrary, violent and dictatorial attitude imposed by someone to any group, to his entourage" Very much what the democrats are doing right now. Violence to impose their view.
I'm not calling fascist someone with who I disagree, but people holding "white live matter too much" or punching Richard Spencer or rioting.
What does the "black lives matter" movement have to do with fascism? Or punching white supremacists?
It has to do with people physically assaulting people just for their ideas. It is very worrying, especially in the USA where free speech is/was so great, unlike so many country. I think it is sad. How, and people telling I matter "too much" because of my skin colour, I'm not pleased by this, too.
You mean, the one that brought Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq?
For certain, rather flexible, definitions of "democracy".
There was a dictator in both of these country, now there are elected presidents. That's democracy for me, or at least, much better than what they had before.
The one that put the terrorists in jail in Guantanamo Bay?
For certain, rather flexible, definitions of "terrorists". And I find it interesting that, after all your complaints about "fascists", you're praising an act of right-wing authoritarianism and contempt for the rule of law. I don't know about you, but I think there's a problem when we can imprison people indefinitely without a trial and say "trust us, it's national security" as the only justification.
Ok, I may seem a bit bad here, but I do think the governement is trying its best to put only dangerous people in jail, so I don't think there is a problem here. Guantanamo isn't for everyone, they know who to send there.
When America and the whole free world was attacked in the 9/11?
That's a rather dramatic way of looking at things. What exactly is the "free world", and how was it attacked by a single event in the US?
To my mind, the free world is The West, and Japan and South Corea. I may have forgotten some countries (some parts of South America). The 9/11 was in deed against America, but as a symbol, the symbol of the clash of civilizations. The free world has been under attack by the the Soviets, now by radical islam (I don't know how you call it ? Maybe extremism ?). We can see it with isis and all the terrorists
Bush defended his country, and defended the whole world, in fact, and for this I will always be thankful to him
Defended the whole world from what? A terrorist organization that promptly moved out of Afghanistan and set up operations elsewhere as soon as the US invaded? Or from a dictator in Iraq that had no means of attacking anyone outside of his neighbors (and own citizens)?
I think he helped the world by fighting the terrorists, yes. You don't have to invade every country in the world to fight them. But afghanistan was their kingdom so taking it from them was a good idea.
And he made the world safer. Safer, yes.
That's a rather shaky claim given how much of a disaster the Bush-era wars have been.
It wasn't perfect, of course, but at the end, it was better than at the beggining. And remember: Bush never wanted this. They attacked him and forced him.
Obama ? War everywhere, everywhen. Even Iraqi, that Bush spend so many time to help, was invaded by isis.... And now what ? After 8 years, there are still terrorists everywere, and in more countries than before.
...
You do realize that Bush did effectively nothing to fix Iraq, right? We invaded, destroyed the existing government, and left nothing in its place. There was still active fighting going on when Bush left office, and ISIS (or a similar organization in its place) was almost inevitable as soon as the US left Iraq and stopped its massive (and unsustainable) investment in providing security. It's absolutely insane to blame Obama for not miraculously fixing the complete disaster that Bush left for him, and praise Bush for creating the mess in the first place.
Bush spend years in iraq. So many American men and women staying in this country to protect it and rebuild it. They were successful until isi came and almost destroyed it. I guess iraq needed some more years ?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to the whole world. Saddam was a threat to Iraqis, certainly, and possibly to his neighbours but on the world stage he was a nobody since the first Gulf war, until Bush decided to elevate him to the position of Satan based on lies. And if Saddam wasn't removed then it is possible ISIS would not exist as a large portion of its leadership is ex-members of Saddams government and military.
Also, that violence in Iraq was due to Bush (and Blair) fething up the post invasion planning which left a weak government and badly lead and prepared military which was unable to adequately react to ISIS.
How do you propose was Obama meant to prevent the rise of ISIS? Should he have sent ground troops into Libya and Syria to topple their governments and begin a years long occupation, too? Yes the Middle East is currently a mess but that is not Obama's doing. The clue is in the fact that Syria is in the midst of a civil war, not a foreign invasion. Same went for Libya. The violence in these countries was started by their own citizens and governments.
Oh, and Obama's government actually caught and killed the person responsible for planning 9/11. Bush just killed an unrelated dictator.
I wasn't clear, I'm sorry. I don't think saddam threatened the world, but the terrorists in afghanistan did. So he protected the world not by bringing democracy to iraq but by attacking the terrorists in afghanistan
Bush had troops in Iraq for years, fighting the rebels and helping rebuliding the country. One can hardly say he did nothing. And then, suddenly there was noone anymore, and the terrorists rised and took control of a part of iraq as the iraqi army fleed like cowards. It shouldn't have been tolerated. Nothing to do with Syria: it may have terrorists in syria, but they wouldn't have been so powerful without stealing iraqi weapons, money, and people. And the Victory they had on iraq gave them much needed credit. There would have been terrorists in syria, yes I agree, but not in iraq, and thus the new iraq could have been protected from this mess.
You clearly don't know your regional 21st century history.
Bush did not fight rebels in Iraq, he basically fought Iraq. American troops had to fight insurgents but also sunni and shia sectarians who wanted to kill each other but didn't mind killing US troops that prevented them from doing so. The US was fighting in Iraq trying to control a population that murdered each other over political power due to the vacuum that was left when Saddam was deposed. It was a tragedy that so many lives were lost in an effort to get these people to cooperate instead of kill each other and then having the al-Maliki government trying to bring back a semi dictatorship excluding significant parts of the country. This is why the generalised argument that Bush did nothing is used, because all the US efforts almost collapsed when al-Maliki told them to pack their bags. The significant effort spend by coalition troops and some less than reputable militias prevented a further collapse, although it was already tenuous at best to assume IS would ever be able to take Baghdad. When the US left it left a semi stable country. After the 2007 US surge and involving the sunni population in the political process the situation stabilized and violence declined. Organizations such as Al Qaeda in Iraq (which became IS) lost most of their power. Then the Syrian civil war broke out. This enabled Al Qaeda in Iraq which had become IS to flee across the border and reorganize itself in the chaotic mess in Syria. It was in Syria they regained their powerbase and the material to invade Iraq. You have it all backwards. When the US left in 2011 on older agreements from before Obama, the al-Maliki government started to shift power in favour of the shia population, promoting these heavily in the government and army. At the same time corruption in the army rose and let to what are called 'ghost soldiers', basically fake people that they use to get more paychecks. This combination let to an angry sunni part in North Iraq that was willing to support the invading IS troops as they thought anything would be better than al-Maliki, with only a corrupt and mostly shia led army not willing to fight for sunni territory. Iraqi resistance collapsed due to a significant amount of blatant mistakes by the Iraqi government and the Syrian civil war, not thanks to Obama. Iraq flowed out of post Obama Iraqi politics and Syria.
And then, suddenly there was noone anymore, and the terrorists rised and took control of a part of iraq as the iraqi army fleed like cowards. It shouldn't have been tolerated. Nothing to do with Syria: it may have terrorists in syria, but they wouldn't have been so powerful without stealing iraqi weapons, money, and people. And the Victory they had on iraq gave them much needed credit.
The reason there was no-one there anymore was because Bush agreed to withdraw the troops by a certain date and negotiations between the US and Iraqi government to extend that timeframe were unsuccessful.
So should the US have just ignored their agreement with the Iraqi government and kept its soldiers in Iraq? That would surely not lead to any destabilisation and erosion of the country's government or the Iraqi's faith in their government. Neither would it of course lead to backlash against the American forces and the US in general.
former leader of the free world being outsmarted by a thin sheet of plastic.
The one that put the terrorists in jail in Guantanamo Bay
Without any pesky trials or anything like that.
And he made the world safer. Safer, yes.
Couldn't keep his own country safe, no way at all he made the world safer.
Iraq and the whole ME region was far more stable and secure prior to his ( + allies TBF) blunderings.
Obama ? War everywhere,
The ones he inherited, yes.
that Bush spend so many time to help
he sure is popular amongst the Iraqi people.
Well presumably not amongst the untold thousands who have died since he decided to invade them for no good reason anyway.
Rosebuddy wrote: Punching him because of that fact is a hugely antifascist thing to do.
Please keep up.
That's actually an alt-hug, so that'll be fine.
Spoiler:
what is it with people who wave their hands like that ?
Reminds of the way that normally the more monstrous the regime the more elaborate and OTT their armies marching style is.
Patriotism Day, Communist-style military might parades, 'Murican nationalistic ferver...c'mon Donnie, just go all-in and get the tin-pot dictator military uniform with all the ribbons and bows and just let your freak flag fly!
A Town Called Malus wrote: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to the whole world. Saddam was a threat to Iraqis, certainly, and possibly to his neighbours but on the world stage he was a nobody since the first Gulf war, until Bush decided to elevate him to the position of Satan based on lies. And if Saddam wasn't removed then it is possible ISIS would not exist as a large portion of its leadership is ex-members of Saddams government and military.
Also, that violence in Iraq was due to Bush (and Blair) fething up the post invasion planning which left a weak government and badly lead and prepared military which was unable to adequately react to ISIS.
How do you propose was Obama meant to prevent the rise of ISIS? Should he have sent ground troops into Libya and Syria to topple their governments and begin a years long occupation, too? Yes the Middle East is currently a mess but that is not Obama's doing. The clue is in the fact that Syria is in the midst of a civil war, not a foreign invasion. Same went for Libya. The violence in these countries was started by their own citizens and governments.
Oh, and Obama's government actually caught and killed the person responsible for planning 9/11. Bush just killed an unrelated dictator.
Obama and Clinton were key players in toppling the Lybian government and enabling the chaos that currently is playing out in that country.
Ustrello wrote: And if we weren't stuck in the quagmire that was Iraq I could of seen boots on the ground in lybia and the situation probably would of been different
Gaddafi got capped late in 2011. How many US troops were in Iraq at that point?