Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cafe toonzone' started by wonderfly, Jan 3, 2017.
It's official. Donald Trump is now President of the United States.
Well, I'll say this...this is a very different type of inauguration speech.
Right from the start, he blasts the establishment politicians around him. He speaks so bluntly...it's refreshing and shocking and invigorating all at once.
That would mean more if he didnt pick establishment politicians for his cabinet
Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk
Eh. Speeches mean very little, usually. Yes, the Gettysburg Address is legendary, but that's thanks to Lincoln's actions and legacy. I thought the speech seemed kind of fake, and I guarantee you Trump didn't write it. It screamed Steve Bannon to me.That's not a huge deal, but Trump just can't sell stuff that other people wrote, something Obama could do masterfully. But it doesn't matter, actions will speak louder than words. Like how the civil rights page was removed from the White House's website today.
Somehow I think any Republican that he picked would be "Establishment" in the eyes of some here.
Trump only picked loyalists, those who supported his vision during the campaign, or if they weren't supportive during the campaign, they're people he's vetted and feels confident enough about.
Except he didn't. Where's Christie, Palin, Gingrich, Giuliani, Bolton, etc? Do you remember Nikki Haley being pro Trump?
Good points. Gingrich actually is serving as an advisor, but it's in an informal capacity. He has said he wants to help Trump focus on the big picture - the goal being to at first mimic but then to exceed the Republican "Contract with America" from the 90's. Christie became toxic, as did Giuliani to an extent. Palin I don't think was interested in serving.
Let me clarify: When I said "those who support his vision during the campaign", I didn't mean actively campaigning with him (outside of Jeff Sessions). General James Mattis, the new Secretary of Defense: his view of the threat of radical Islam lined up with Trump right from the start. Mattis "supported his vision". So Trump interviewed Mattis, could tell he would be loyal, and so they're off and running. Repeat. Haley passed the interview, she's going to be loyal.
But c'mon, I think we're arguing different things.
In my mind, "Establishment" Republicans are moderates like John McCain and Lindsay Graham. Republican Senators who think just because their voters keep sending them back to serve in Congress year after year, that THEY know how best to run the country (have I mentioned I favor term limits)?
But in the eyes of liberals and Democrats here, are ANY Republicans NOT "Establishment"? "Well maybe if he had appointed Bernie Sanders as his Secretary of State, THEN I'd believe he was standing up against the Establishment!"
No, there are people in the GOP that could be seen as going anti establishment, there's no doubt. Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, for example. I think we can agree that Rick Perry is not anti-establishment, and how can you get more establishment than Reince
I want to bring up the marches that are happening all over the world. They were designed as women's rights marches, but have morphed into anti-Trump rallies. There's one happening about twenty minutes from me. It's pretty jaw dropping to see.
And from what I read on the NY Times, they was hijacked and financed by some big fat cats like Geoge Soros. http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenint...0-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/
Well, this is already a full fledged propaganda war, isn't it? Certain media are trying to make these protests up to be the start of a movement. Meanwhile, Sean Spicer, the new White House Press Secretary, held his first press conference this evening, and attacked the media for trying to suggest attendance was down at the inauguration yesterday (compared to 8 years ago).
I saw some of that firsthand watching the news yesterday (on CNN), suggesting crowds weren't as big as 8 years ago. I'll let the media and Trump fight it out, but here's my line of reasoning: Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia voted overwhelmingly for Clinton in the election. People from the heartland (Red States) can't ALL make it to D.C. for the inauguration. It's okay if the crowds were less than what Obama got. It doesn't lesson in any way the vast amount of support for Trump that's out there.
Sound vaguely reminiscent of the way the Koch brothers helped boost the Tea Party movement into a political force (the Kochs being the money behind such organizations such as the Heritage Foundation). That caused a lot of political mayhem, but more importantly it helped line the pockets of the ultra-wealthy. For anyone interested in this, I am reading Dark Money by Jane Mayer right now and would recommend it to you.
As for any protest that crosses the line from peaceful opposition into violence and ignorance, as a liberal I oppose the lack of perspective that some of these self-fashioned crusaders seem to have.
No offense, Wonderfly, but I thought you would have agreed with Spicer there. We have clear video, and it was taken live, but Trump doesn't agree with it so it must be a lie. He's gonna accuse the media of "doctoring" other things with about as much evidence to back it up. Based on that, which side would you trust more?
I'm sure you're going to bring up the media has spread falsehoods in the past. Granted. But overall they're more mentally stable.
Yeah, the issue here is not the number of people who attended Trump's inauguration, because that's hard to accurately gauge. It's that Spicer claimed it had the biggest crowd of any inauguration EVER, despite ample photo and video evidence to the contrary. A press secretary flat out lied to reporters and, by extension, the American people. This is not a good precedent.
Also, while Trump certainly has support out there, it's pretty telling that the women's march/general Trump protest had more attendees than the inauguration.
I can give an easy answer why attendance was way down: the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump. It's that simple. Many didn't vote, and it's also a fact the majority of people who did vote cast a ballot against him. There's no way for Trump to spin that. Save the "she only won the popular vote because of liberal California!" garbage. Last time I checked, California was still part of America. So a lot of people aren't happy about him. If you believe the polling, the majority of Americans don't approve of him, so of course people were t going to show up. Meanwhile, people showed up in 2008 to witness history, and it didn't hurt that Obama's popularity was in the 80% range. But the fact Trump drew less than W's second inauguration is embarrassing.
*shrug* On one hand, it sounds like a petty thing to argue over, but on the other hand, I do like that Trump will combat the media over anything and everything he feels is meant to marginalize his agenda. "Well, he didn't have as big a crowd as Obama, so he doesn't have a right to repeal Obamacare." THAT is the media's objective.
But again, it's just a matter of logistics, in my opinion: There's more Democrats in the D.C. area. It doesn't change the fact that there weren't millions of television viewers cheering on Trump at home.
Now see, THAT is liberal media spin. Yes, California is part of the U.S., but this shows the Electoral college worked. Here is a good article on the California vote:
From that article:
By most any other measure, other then the popular vote, Trump's win is a landslide or a near landslide. He won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
And you bring up recent polls showing Trump going into office with the lowest approval ratings of a modern President. Well these are the same pollsters that were trying to tell us Trump was going to lose in Texas, Georgia, and Utah. That the Republican party was going to be shattered into pieces and Democrats were going to rule for a thousand years. The polls are fake.
This is a propaganda war, and Trump's going to fight back (sometimes with his own propaganda).
"Well, he didn't have as big a crowd as Obama, so he doesn't have a right to repeal Obamacare." THAT is the media's objective."
I'm not sure where you got this from. Literally no opinion piece about this, that I've read, has mentioned what you're suggesting, that Trump's smaller crowds disqualify him from doing anything as president. The issue here isn't Trump's stances on legislation, it's fabricating things (Kelly Ann Conway calls it "alternate facts", but it's classically known as "lying") because the truth doesn't make him look good, since his ego can't handle any criticism.
Look up the term "gaslighting". This is the Trump team's technique: Double down on lies to spread uncertainty and distrust of the news, so that nobody will trust anybody but Trump, even when he outright lies. I don't have to tell you how dangerous and Orwellian such an act is.
Both sides are known for doubling down on lies. That's why we kept hearing the Russians stole the election and Trump is best friends with the KKK.
Actually, with Trump, I'm not convinced he thinks he's lying. For instance, the whole "I remember Muslims cheering in New Jersey on September 11th", I think his memory got blurred (there were Palestinians who were cheering in the streets on September 11th, but that was in Palestine, not New Jersey), and when corrected, rather then cower in fear and apologize, he basically brushed it off like "Well, I remember hearing something like that from somewhere." Because the facts didn't matter, when Trump's focus is the underlying theme behind the words. In this case: Too many Muslims are happy to see America (and the West) pay a penalty for our supposed crimes. Too many Muslims have turned a blind eye to terrorism for too long.
But I don't want to re-legislate the election campaign. Tomorrow is Trump's first full day on the job (the weekend was mostly a brief celebratory honeymoon).
EDIT: Similarly, I suspect Trump saw the crowd, heard the chants of "USA! USA! USA!" as he prepared to take the oath of office (which did happen) and thought "This crowd is HUGE!" and when he heard the media going on about how it didn't compare to Obama, it struck a chord, with him thinking "That can't be right, I saw with my own eyes, that crowd was huge!"
No one has ever said he doesn't have the right to repeal Obamacare because he got smaller crowds.
Super fair point, though I would like to point out this wasn't a problem in 2001 or 2005 for Bush's inaugurations.
Except for the fact most people didn't vote for him. A tidbit: only 25% of the eligible voting public voted for him. So 75% of the people who were legally able to vote for him chose not to. Hardly a landslide. Remember, he got less votes than Romney did in 2012. Yes, he won most of the counties in the country, but remember not all counties are built the same. Some have small towns with 500 people and are deeply conservative, while others have cities with 5 million people and are solid blue. And there aren't a lot of liberals outside of cities, so it's hardly surprising for the GOP to win most of the counties. It happened in 2012, but Obama still won a comfortable victory. The whole "remove California from the popular vote" thing is nonsense. I support the electoral college for all the reasons that article states, but it drives me crazy when people remove it from the popular vote. A person living in California is just as much an American as someone living in any red state, and their opinion is just as important. Hey, since we're removing California from the popular vote since it's big and blue, why not also remove Texas? It's big and red, so why not? Removing millions of votes to suit a narrative is dishonest.
Well, Real Clear Politics said Utah was going for Trump, along with Georgia and Texas and and no, they haven't updated that page since the election. So no, the polls weren't saying that at all in regards to those states, I don't where you got that from. And really, a lot of polls were saying he had a real shot in places like Michigan and Wisconsin, and the internals in the polls were actually slowly leaning towards Trump leading up to the election. The problem was liberal sites like The Huffington Post were including their headlines of "Hillary had a 99% chance of winning!" everywhere, and soon that idea was implanted in people's heads. Yes, some publications oversampled Democrats in some polls, there's no denying that. I'm also not saying Nate Silver wasn't 100% wrong, because he was. But people who were paying attention could see things were trending towards Trump. Should those polls be taken with a grain of salt? Yes. All polls should. But we just saw millions of people march against Trump all weekend, so I don't believe he really is secretly loved. Almost 67 million people voted for his biggest opponent. Yes, millions of people voted for him, but exit polls showed many of the people who voted for him believed he wasn't qualified. They voted for him not because they liked him, but because they wanted to throw a brick at the establishment's window. I'm not saying he doesn't have massive support, because he does. But he also has massive opposition, he's deeply dividing.
Wonderfly, weren't you the one posting articles about how Trump definitely had a chance in winning?
I don't remember ANY polls at all saying he/she would definitely win. CNN just interpreted them wrong.
I find it unbelievable how people are judging something like "all polls". If all polls were indeed crap, then that says something about Trump voters who apparently weren't willing to participate.
Also, I find it weird how Californians are okay with their vote being less important than an Alaskan's vote. If my vote would be less important than a French-speaking vote, I would be pissed. I don't care how much bigger we are, we're bigger so we should have more to say. If a minority wants more power, they should simply make more offspring
Russia may not have literally hacked the voting machines, but make no mistake, they DID have an influence in the election. As for Trump and the KKK, he may not be best friends with the group, but Steve Bannon, who is in Trump's cabinet, comes from a site that is full of proud bigots. So at this point we're splitting hairs. Plus, David Duke has repeatedly voiced his support for Trump, so even though their relationship is not a two-way street, it's not comforting that supremacists are in favor of his proposed policies.
So now your position is that Trump has a bad memory? That's not better. And come on, facts ALWAYS matter. To suggest otherwise is the reason this administration is so dangerous. The press secretary's job isn't to get in a propaganda war with the press.
And I can't believe I have to say this, but most Muslims are peaceful and hate terrorism just like the rest of us. It's death cult groups like Daesh that give Islam a bad name. Just like Westboro and abusive priests give Christians a bad name.
And that's fine, he's more than allowed to claim, in his opinion, that the crowd was huge. What's not okay is claim the photos were doctored, and re-writing history by sending the press secretary out to say the crowd was factually bigger than any other crowd in history and that the press should be ashamed of themselves. That's the issue here.