Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

We'll see what he does.

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

Location Finland

 Ustrello wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

One step closer to becoming a fascist huh?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-reportedly-wanted-tanks-missile-014415635.html

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.

Overral a very well worded speech.

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.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 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.

 Cothonian wrote:
Overral a very well worded speech.

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.

Oh, I'm sure he will.

Just after taking the weekend off.

 godardc wrote:

 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).

 Ustrello wrote:
One step closer to becoming a fascist huh?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-reportedly-wanted-tanks-missile-014415635.html

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.

 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 it will be GREAT toothpaste. How can you put a price on greatness?

 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.

And the fun begins!

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

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.

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

The Every Student Succeeds Act is certainly an improvement. Of course in typical Congressional fashion it was passed in 2015 but won't be fully implemented until the 2019-2020 school year so there is ample time for Congress to screw it up.
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essafactsheet1127.pdf

@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.

 Ustrello wrote:
One step closer to becoming a fascist huh?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-reportedly-wanted-tanks-missile-014415635.html

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.

Well, ya gotta be like daddy Putin.

 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

 Ustrello wrote:
One step closer to becoming a fascist huh?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-reportedly-wanted-tanks-missile-014415635.html

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 ?

 godardc wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
One step closer to becoming a fascist huh?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-reportedly-wanted-tanks-missile-014415635.html

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

 godardc wrote:



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.

 Ustrello wrote:
One step closer to becoming a fascist huh?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-reportedly-wanted-tanks-missile-014415635.html

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.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
One step closer to becoming a fascist huh?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-reportedly-wanted-tanks-missile-014415635.html

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.

 whembly wrote:

 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.

 whembly wrote:

 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

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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?

 Cothonian wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
One step closer to becoming a fascist huh?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-reportedly-wanted-tanks-missile-014415635.html

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.

 Ustrello wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
One step closer to becoming a fascist huh?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-reportedly-wanted-tanks-missile-014415635.html

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


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 ?

 Ustrello wrote:

 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?