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.
The fundamentally problem with how people look at Libya is the mistaken notion that things there could have been made to work out.
Seriously, the US has spent most of the last decade directly involved in the Middle East, and how the feth has that gak worked out? The idea that if X had been done, or ig Y hadn't Libya would be fine is assuming a lot, and ignoing that most of the assumptions by which the West has made about the Middle East have continually panned out to be wrong.
Did Clinton feth it up? I'm not really clear on how the West in general didn't feth it up, which makes trying to pin the whole thing on one person little more than political hogwash. Most of the last century of Middle Eastern history could be written off as "the US/Britain/France/NATO/someone tried to force its will on the Middle East and it didn't work."
I'm fine with us and the French taking the lions share of the blame for the Wests involvement in Libya not going exactly well, rather than the US. Also, naturally, I'd blame the French more
In saying that, LordofHats is probably right, to an extent. Sometimes things are just ****ed and it's a question of best judgement at the time whether what you'll do makes something incrementally less rubbish or worse.
We really should respect everything that scrolls across Glorious Orange Leader's phone screen as his safe space, and that includes the National Park Service's Twitter feed. How else is he supposed to relax this weekend? We can't stress him out by reminding him he might not be the best, most beloved person in the history of the world.
It is unusual for an administration to silence the National Park Service from commenting on the attendance figures for a national park.
The guy thinks demagogues are great roll models. First he tells the branches of government to stop using twitter, then he tells them to stop talking to the public at all
All news is good news when it comes from glorious leader!
whembly wrote: They shared two tweets that were unsympathetic to President Trump during his inauguration.
Yep. I find it completely unacceptable that every branch of the government did not fall 100% in line behind the propaganda effort, and revealed an awkward truth that might embarrass our benevolent and dearest leader.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
So the headline thing, I was all ready to be outraged about (EG Incoming administration bans agencies from tweeting) . But yeah, looking at what happened.
I'm kinda like... yeah... Not the the best thing for a Governmental organisation to do.
Are they supposed to just not show pictures of the 'crowd' at the inauguration? What about any pictures of the President that he deems unflattering? You guys remember when he went on that rant, right? What about if they don't think it's unflattering, but he does? What if he himself tweets something stupid, is the entire government supposed to pretend it didn't happen?
I can't believe the nation is going to have to spend the next however long stepping on eggshells so we don't hurt the President's feelings. Can you imagine if Obama acted like this?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/21 21:33:13
It might be my Britishness going through but kinda my opinion is, tweets/retweets etc on social media are Official Statements by a Governmental Organisation. In the UK, at least, Governmental Organisations are supposed (not saying they always are) to be apolitical. Therefore, if they had just, say, tweeted a picture of the crowds, that would be a factual thing. Heck, they could have even done something along the lines of. "Photographs of inaugurations over the years."
However, an instruction to, "Compare the crowds" is very much a political statement and therefore, I would not feel comfortable with a Governmental organisation doing such.
On, for example, climate change, if it was a case of: "These are December 2016's statistics of the change in ice thickness of Somesorta Glacier in Alaska" from the Office of Meteorology and it was something that was done as standard business, that is not in of itself a political statement, it may be a politically inconvenient statement, but it is not a political statement in of itself.
Compel wrote: However, an instruction to, "Compare the crowds" is very much a political statement and therefore, I would not feel comfortable with a Governmental organisation doing such.
The correct answer to that situation is to fire/discipline the specific person who made the tweet, but that's not what what happened. To drop the sarcasm for a post, I haven't seen anyone actually attribute the ban to Trump's administration. Rather the order has been attributed to the Washington Support Office, and might have nothing to do with Trump himself (though the order itself is so bizarre and seemingly vindictive it does seem like something he'd do to me).
You don't shut down a communication line for an entire federal department because a few people made some prank phone calls.
Compel wrote: It might be my Britishness going through but kinda my opinion is, tweets/retweets etc on social media are Official Statements by a Governmental Organisation. In the UK, at least, Governmental Organisations are supposed (not saying they always are) to be apolitical. Therefore, if they had just, say, tweeted a picture of the crowds, that would be a factual thing. Heck, they could have even done something along the lines of. "Photographs of inaugurations over the years."
However, an instruction to, "Compare the crowds" is very much a political statement and therefore, I would not feel comfortable with a Governmental organisation doing such.
On, for example, climate change, if it was a case of: "These are December 2016's statistics of the change in ice thickness of Somesorta Glacier in Alaska" from the Office of Meteorology and it was something that was done as standard business, that is not in of itself a political statement, it may be a politically inconvenient statement, but it is not a political statement in of itself.
But this is just my views.
Basically my view. Taking down those particular tweets made sense, but my worry is that this will lead to silencing of actual information (such as climate change data).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?
Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.
You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?
Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.
You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.
Its already been happening in this thread by some of our esteemed fellow posters
Part of me suspects Trump really might not be prepared for how difficult it is going to be to hide from cameras now. Even as a candidate there's a much better ability to avoid the press and media attention when you don't want it, especially in election season when all those cameras are as occupied with a dozen other people as they are with you.
...glad that the adversarial press is back... after a long 8 year hiatus.
EDIT: oops... meant to post this:
Bradd Jaffy ✔ @BraddJaffy
"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period," Trump White House press secretary claims
4:48 PM - 21 Jan 2017
462 462 Retweets 582 582 likes
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/21 23:51:55
whembly wrote: "Crowd size" is the new "hand size"... innit?
...glad that the adversarial press is back... after a long 8 year hiatus.
You've said that before, and I've questioned you before with no response. What, exactly, do you think that the press wasn't holding Obama accountable for?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: "Crowd size" is the new "hand size"... innit?
When Trump lies out of his mouth, then yes it becomes a deal. When the POTUS lies within 24 hours of being inaugurated, a lie so stupid that anybody with a pair of eyes looking at a picture can see it, then it's a pretty good sign of something.
How many lies today so far? Record breaking crowds, great weather, never talked bad about the intelligence agencies.
...glad that the adversarial press is back... after a long 8 year hiatus.
For not liking Trump you are awesome at parroting his speech. #FakeNews, adversarial press.
Is this the same press that you and others claimed ignored Clinton in favor of Trump, despite having more negative stories on Clinton? The same lies about ignoring Obama during the 2012 election, despite having more negative stories on Obama than McCain?
Reporting truth does not make the press adversarial, just because you or Trump don't like the news.
And there are plenty of stories about the "adversarial press" and Obama.
whembly wrote: "Crowd size" is the new "hand size"... innit?
...glad that the adversarial press is back... after a long 8 year hiatus.
You've said that before, and I've questioned you before with no response. What, exactly, do you think that the press wasn't holding Obama accountable for?
They weren't holding him accountable for being a democrat
