President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Frank Bullitt

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you think they'll see it like that? There haven't been as many trump supporters on this thread today so it's hard to tell how they viewed all this stuff.

Well there is now a twitter feed for people who regret voting for Trump.

I feel the veil hasnt just slipped, its totally gone.

The rhetoric and drama he created during the elections it totally gone now, and those who voted for him will be finding it harder and harder to stick up for him.

Being inaugurated with a favourability rating of just 37% is comical, and it can only go down from here.

Mr.Micro

Gintonious wrote: »

Well there is now a twitter feed for people who regret voting for Trump.

I feel the veil hasnt just slipped, its totally gone.

The rhetoric and drama he created during the elections it totally gone now, and those who voted for him will be finding it harder and harder to stick up for him.

Being inaugurated with a favourability rating of just 37% is comical, and it can only go down from here.

It depends on what goes down. Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is there for 4 years, plus all the comedians and hardliners that he and his administration appoint. We can all sit back now and watch the chaos and fun, IMO.

eire4

Gintonious wrote: »

Getting called out on your continuous falsehoods really is a terrible form of bullying. Tragic to see.

The woman is a donkey with no moral compass to work from. I for one am enjoying this run of from from the administration. The more they do it, the more it hurts them.

I just hope the people of America see it and get active about it.

Well they certainly did yesterday with the hundreds of thousands who marched in cities around the country as well as in DC.

eire4

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It depends on what goes down. Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is there for 4 years, plus all the comedians and hardliners that he and his administration appoint. We can all sit back now and watch the chaos and fun, IMO.

The danger though is that because the US is so powerful the chaos as you say can spill over and have terrible consequences for many people around the world. The US government has a long history of it when the system has been corrupted which given the US is now arguably an oligarchy run by plutocrats is the case right now. The hubris of Bush in Iraqi is hurting Europe now with the terrorism and refugee crisis that has been one of the consequences of destabilizing the region. You can go back to Nixon's regime which saw the CIA work hand hand with the horrific dictator Pinochet to overthrown the legally elected Chilean government of Allende. The CIA was heavily involved just before that in the installation of the brutal General Suharto in Indonesia in place of Suharto etc etc. This is the scray side of the current US situation it can have very nasty side effects which spill over to places around the globe.

wonderfullife

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It depends on what goes down. Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is there for 4 years, plus all the comedians and hardliners that he and his administration appoint. We can all sit back now and watch the chaos and fun, IMO.

Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem in the first week is definitely going to lead to a lot of "fun". The GOP Bill to withdraw from the UN is also going to be tremendous fun. Allowing Putin to waltz back into Ukraine, Georgia and anywhere else he fancies also fun. Allowing Netanyahu to keep building settlements wherever he fancies also fun.

And that's just the international fun.

Domestically there'll be all sorts of fun too, starting with attempts to push back against women, the poor and the LGBT communities.

Meh all fun and games I suppose.

You got the chaos part right

El_Duderino 09

Gintonious wrote:

Well there is now a twitter feed for people who regret voting for Trump.

Great hear it.

Gintonious wrote:

Being inaugurated with a favourability rating of just 37% is comical, and it can only go down from here.

It has more scope to go up from there I think. Imagine when he has done undeniable success. The media will have to report it and his supporters will see that as a major victory -even the unfair media said it was good, so it must be great.

I was chatting with a relative from Texas last night and he's a big Trump man. Says he has much more support than you'd think.

He had all the lines, America will be respected, I asked if he meant respect or fear and he said it didn't matter. He said Trump is a brilliant business man who truly cares about the little guy and will do deals that benefit America. He said Trump has money so he doesn't care about money or proving himself to anyone. He said most of all he's popular because the media hates him.

Truly terrifying. Not that Texas is where the hot debating will take place in the next four years, but it's a data point.

wonderfullife

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He said Trump is a brilliant business man who truly cares about the little guy and will do deals that benefit America.

I'm sorry but your relative is delusional based on the above alone.

Multiple bankruptcies stiffing people of millions. A net worth tied up in real estate and leveraged by debt. He's a con-man running an elaborate Ponzi scheme and his tax returns will show it (hence the refusal to release). Not to mention his daddy giving him the millions to make a start.

He literally stepped over little guys his entire life and sued them into submission if they tried to fight back.

All his policies will be aimed at deals that benefit the Trump Foundation. If they also benefit America then great but that's the only thing he cares about.

Just shows how stupid a lot of Americans are. No offence to your relative.

El_Duderino 09

wonderfullife wrote:

I'm sorry but your relative is delusional based on the above alone.

Multiple bankruptcies stiffing people of millions. A net worth tied up in real estate and leveraged by debt. He's a con-man running an elaborate Ponzi scheme and his tax returns will show it (hence the refusal to release). Not to mention his daddy giving him the millions to make a start.

Oh I get it. But that's the 'reality' on the ground in Texas. These are the alternative facts.

wonderfullife wrote:

He literally stepped over little guys his entire life and sued them into submission if they tried to fight back.

All his policies will be aimed at deals that benefit the Trump Foundation. If they also benefit America then great but that's the only thing he cares about.

I asked him about how trump's plans will help the working man and he reckons he'll cut great deals with foreign countries. I don't know how that will benefit the working man financially but I know from talking to my relative that it will make the working man FEEL great again. He was sure that nobody respects America because of Obama. Those are the alternative facts.

Trump will make America feel great again. That's all that really matters. If people feel great in 4 years time then he gets re-elected. Simple as that.

wonderfullife wrote:

Just shows how stupid a lot of Americans are. No offence to your relative.

No offense taken. I could hardly believe he was saying it. He literally didn't really get the distinction between respect and fear. Made no difference to him. No doubt about it there will be military missile parades before long.

The striking thing was that he thought Obama had made the US a laughing stock. I was there a few years ago and racism was a given. He doesn't respect Obama and he can't imagine why anyone else would respect him. He does respect Trump though, because of the things I mentioned earlier (great business man, cares about the little guy) and he assumes the world will respect him too.

Alternative facts are just as good as real ones.

fryup

Bambi wrote: »

Just on the whole crowd size thing..Im not a fan of trump but we've seen in the irish media crowd sizes being played down and selective photographs of attendances when they're not fully formed being used to back that up.

but those were live pictures at the inauguration...theres no getting away from it he did get a smaller crowd than Obama ...but he shouldn't obsess about it

El_Duderino 09

fryup wrote:

but those were live pictures at the inauguration...theres no getting away from it he did get a smaller crowd than Obama ...but he shouldn't obsess about it

Obsessing about a small thing like this shows the media that they won't get away with reporting on bigger issues that don't suit the administration. It's classic fascist behaviour.

This doesn't mean Trump is definitely a fascist, but it's another data point squarely in the fascist column.

Harika

Bambi wrote: »

Just on the whole crowd size thing..Im not a fan of trump but we've seen in the irish media crow sizes being played down and selective photographs of attendances when they're not fully formed being used to back that up.

I couldn't care more about crowd sizes, there are too many variables that would influence them at this inauguration, like missing of a good band or weather or panic of protests.
What worries me is that the white house press secretary announces it was the biggest ever, what is blatantly wrong. No numbers indicate that. And other Trump associates defend this lies as "alternative facts". We will see much more of this and sometimes it won't be so easy to spot. Like the WMD in Iraq.

oscarBravo

Harika wrote: »

I couldn't care more about crowd sizes, there are too many variables that would influence them at this inauguration, like missing of a good band or weather or panic of protests.
What worries me is that the white house press secretary announces it was the biggest ever, what is blatantly wrong. No numbers indicate that. And other Trump associates defend this lies as "alternative facts". We will see much more of this and sometimes it won't be so easy to spot. Like the WMD in Iraq.

This. The most important thing we learned from the first weekend of the Trump presidency is that the administration will lie shamelessly about everything. Not just matters of national security - everything.

There is literally nothing that this administration says that can be taken at face value.

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

This. The most important thing we learned from the first weekend of the Trump presidency is that the administration will lie shamelessly about everything. Not just matters of national security - everything.

There is literally nothing that this administration says that can be taken at face value.

A google on images of the inauguration found this which disproves the low numbers . The media should clean up its act if he does become a bad President then and only then negative articles . At present it reads like sore losers .The Electoral College vote was 304 Trump ,Clinton 277 if Americans cannot except that then change the constitution and have a direct vote .

Go Compare .The links are corrected

The photographer is not named suspicious !

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38682574




https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/01/photos-of-the-inauguration-of-president-donald-j-trump/513995/


Check photo no 5 crowds gathering very similar to the disputed one .The photographer is named .
Photo 10 shows a clear image of the crowd interesting !

Harika

rgossip30 wrote: »

A google on images of the inauguration found this which disproves the low numbers . The media should clean up its act if he does become a bad President then and only then negative articles . At present it reads like sore losers .The Electoral College vote was 304 Trump ,Clinton 277 if Americans cannot except that then change the constitution and have a direct vote .

Go Compare .

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&rct=j...85253471381180 The photographer is not named suspicious !


https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&rct=j...85253471381180

Check photo no 5 crowds gathering very similar to the disputed one .The photographer is named .
Photo 10 shows a clear image of the crowd interesting !

Sorry links are not working for me, so cannot say anything about them. What I read today is e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence with numbers, as pictures can always be misleading.
e.g. Metro Ridership: As of 11am, 193k trips taken so far today. (11am 1/20/13 = 317k, 11am 1/20/09 = 513k, 11am 1/20/05 = 197k) TV ratings were quite down, although you might think it would be watched more for the lulz alone. TV ratings were down to Obamas first inauguration, Trump won against the second one, but first against second is a massive difference. Both are btw down to republican hero Reagan. But see how Trump only compares the favourable outcome? http://fortune.com/2017/01/22/donald-trump-inauguration-ratings-low/
What you already see hear is the introduction of alternative facts that are presented so long until people believe it, like even nowadays people think there were WMD in Iraq.

rgossip30

Harika wrote: »

Sorry links are not working for me, so cannot say anything about them. What I read today is e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence with numbers, as pictures can always be misleading.
e.g. Metro Ridership: As of 11am, 193k trips taken so far today. (11am 1/20/13 = 317k, 11am 1/20/09 = 513k, 11am 1/20/05 = 197k) TV ratings were quite down, although you might think it would be watched more for the lulz alone. TV ratings were down to Obamas first inauguration, Trump won against the second one, but first against second is a massive difference. Both are btw down to republican hero Reagan. But see how Trump only compares the favourable outcome? http://fortune.com/2017/01/22/donald-trump-inauguration-ratings-low/
What you already see hear is the introduction of alternative facts that are presented so long until people believe it, like even nowadays people think there were WMD in Iraq.

Click on the redirect link .

Harika

rgossip30 wrote: »

Click on the redirect link .

Redirect Notice
The page you were on is trying to send you to an invalid URL.

If you do not want to visit that page, you can return to the previous page.

rgossip30

Harika wrote: »

Redirect Notice
The page you were on is trying to send you to an invalid URL.

If you do not want to visit that page, you can return to the previous page.

For those having trouble on the redirect link now direct link should work .try again .

robinph

rgossip30 wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

This. The most important thing we learned from the first weekend of the Trump presidency is that the administration will lie shamelessly about everything. Not just matters of national security - everything.

There is literally nothing that this administration says that can be taken at face value.

A google on images of the inauguration found this which disproves the low numbers . The media should clean up its act if he does become a bad President then and only then negative articles .  At present it reads like sore losers .The Electoral College vote was 304 Trump ,Clinton 277 if Americans cannot except that then change the constitution and have a direct vote .

Go Compare .The links are corrected

The photographer is not named suspicious !

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38682574




https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/01/photos-of-the-inauguration-of-president-donald-j-trump/513995/


Check photo no 5 crowds gathering very similar to the disputed one .The photographer is named .
Photo 10 shows a clear image of the crowd interesting !

Not sure which photos amongst that lot you are trying to make comparisons between.

The pictures on the top of BBC News page with the slider between them are taken at the same time of day from the same camera just before the speeches happened. Quite clearly much smaller crowd in 2017 than in 2009.

Picture 10 from the second link is from a much lower altitude and from the front so the crowd will be blocking out the view of the empty spaces, and there doesn't seem to be a comparable shot from previous years being shown to compare to anyway.

seamus

To be fair to Donnie, if you were standing on that podium it would look like the crowd is thronged all the way back.

If you you compare the overhead with the front view, you can see they actually match up perfectly - the gaps in the crowd in the front view are exactly the same as the ones in the top view. So both pictures are perfectly correct.

Look at the Atlantic link, pictures 10 & 11. The gaps in the crowd match. It's perspective that makes the crowd look bigger than it is.

Harika

That explains the different views from Trump too. Still he should be able to understand this or he is narcissistic enough to ignore facts contrary to his believe.

robinph

And there isn't a photographer named for the main pictures that have been shown for the comparisons because it is this camera and not a person:
http://www.earthcam.com/usa/dc/washingtonmonument/?cam=wamo
There was a timelapse of that camera put together floating about somewhere that clearly shows that the still being used is not from some other time of day to have a false comparison between the two events. They are stills of the busiest shot in the Mall from both years.

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote: »

This. The most important thing we learned from the first weekend of the Trump presidency is that the administration will lie shamelessly about everything. Not just matters of national security - everything.

There is literally nothing that this administration says that can be taken at face value.

Well, we already knew that Donald Trump, the man, is a pathalogical liar. What we learned is that he is not going to even attempt to raise his bar in respect for the office he has just been appointed to

Trump is now dragging the U.S. presidency down to his level, and we're gonna see a lot of sycophants rushing to surround him and brass neck his ludicrous claims.

rgossip30

robinph wrote: »

Not sure which photos amongst that lot you are trying to make comparisons between.

The pictures on the top of BBC News page with the slider between them are taken at the same time of day from the same camera just before the speeches happened. Quite clearly much smaller crowd in 2017 than in 2009.

Picture 10 from the second link is from a much lower altitude and from the front so the crowd will be blocking out the view of the empty spaces, and there doesn't seem to be a comparable shot from previous years being shown to compare to anyway.

Your opinion you are sure you are not trying to downplay it ?? I would welcome a more rational comment from one who is not obviously biased . You don't mention image 5 which is a better shot ?

robinph wrote: »

And there isn't a photographer named for the main pictures that have been shown for the comparisons because it is this camera and not a person:
http://www.earthcam.com/usa/dc/washingtonmonument/?cam=wamo
There was a timelapse of that camera put together floating about somewhere that clearly shows that the still being used is not from some other time of day to have a false comparison between the two events. They are stills of the busiest shot in the Mall from both years.

This is an expert opinion? The earth can shows January 23 time 8.32 ? ?

robinph

rgossip30 wrote: »

Your opinion you are you are not trying to downplay it ??

I don't understand your question?

The crowd at Trumps inauguration was smaller than for Obama in 2009 and 2013.

rgossip30

robinph wrote: »

I don't understand your question?

The crowd at Trumps inauguration was smaller than for Obama in 2009 and 2013.

I am just comparing the photos you read into what you want to see .

Jan_de_Bakker

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, women have nothing to fear from a Trump/Pence presidency.

Maybe they do, but specifically talking about the global protests here, if they are thinking globally and don't want to be hypocritical - they should march on Saudi embassies around the world - they won't though.

And let me know when Trump/Pence ban women on driving.

robinph

rgossip30;102375685


 

robinph wrote: »

And there isn't a photographer named for the main pictures that have been shown for the comparisons because it is this camera and not a person:
http://www.earthcam.com/usa/dc/washingtonmonument/?cam=wamo
There was a timelapse of that camera put together floating about somewhere that clearly shows that the still being used is not from some other time of day to have a false comparison between the two events. They are stills of the busiest shot in the Mall from both years.

This is an expert opinion?
It's not an opinion. It is a fact.
Those comparison pictures were taken from screen grabs of the automated camera on top of the Washington Monument.

Harika

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Maybe they do, but specifically talking about the global protests here, if they are thinking globally and don't want to be hypocritical - they should march on Saudi embassies around the world - they won't though.

And let me know when Trump/Pence ban women on driving.

So women should watch while Trump/Pence demolish all progress that was made in the last decade? Edit: And wait until the US had reached the levels of Saudi Arabia?

robinph

rgossip30 wrote: »

I am just comparing the photos you read into what you want to see .

...and what do you see in the comparison between the two photos on the top of the BBC News page link that you provided?

rgossip30

robinph wrote: »

...and what do you see in the comparison between the two photos on the top of the BBC News page link that you provided?

This has been reported that the Obama photo was posted at an earlier time and is similar to image 5 on the second link .
There is no proof to show what time the image is taken or a confirmation from those that took the shot in 2009 .