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

Water John

Cuban missile crisis was Oct 1962. See 1963 at 12 mins.
I remember it and the clock at the time.

BabyCheeses

snow scorpion wrote: »

How's this for "surprising consequences"?

Trump's approval rating on Inauguration Day was 37%.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before

Six days later, his approval rating is 59%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan26

Your second link says 56% for the 20th, 59% for the 26th. At least try to read the rest of the information on the page. I know pro Trump websites are using the same logic but I don't think it will work too well outside of those safe spaces.

Billy86

Sam Russell wrote: »

What about the Cuba missile crisis?

Not mentioned but much more dangerous than any of the points actually mentioned.

This might give you an idea, as well as to as to why it is so much higher right now...

http://thebulletin.org/remembering-cuban-missile-crisis
But how did the Doomsday Clock -- the very existence of which indicated how close the world was to nuclear catastrophe -- stand still? The answers to this seeming anomaly are that the Doomsday Clock captures trends and takes into account the capacity of leaders and societies to respond to crises with reasoned actions to prevent nuclear holocaust.

ceegee

Just seen the footage of Spicer talking about how Trump had sat down with Martin Luther King Jr a few days ago....

Used to think the bumbling press secretary in Veep was unrealistically stupid, but Spicer is proving me wrong so far.

Professor Moriarty

ceegee wrote:

Used to think the bumbling press secretary in Veep was unrealistically stupid, but Spicer is proving me wrong so far.

Veep is brilliant. It's both bizarre and frightening how a surreal and satirical comedy is more realistic than Trump's clusterfùck 'government'.

B0jangles

Cross-posting because I think everyone should see this:

Remember when Trump talked about bringing back jobs, GOOD jobs to America?

Strange then that his administration is looking to cut 10,000 good jobs already, not important ones though, just EPA ones, you know the people whose job it is to keep lead out of the drinking water, to see that companies don't dump toxic waste wherever they want

The leader of President Trump's U.S. EPA transition team wants to see the agency's 15,000-person staff axed to about 5,000 employees.

"I think getting down to 5,000 in the first term is a goal," said Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who headed the Trump team preparing for the administration changeover at EPA.

With his transition tenure over, Ebell cautioned that he was speaking for himself, but he pointed to Trump's comments as a presidential candidate that he wanted to eliminate EPA. Trump has since said that he wants to "refocus the EPA on its core mission."

"President Trump during the campaign identified the EPA as a major obstacle to economic recovery and growth and he said that he wanted to either abolish it or leave a little bit," Ebell said today in an interview. "He's not going to abolish it in a year; he's going to take a while or leave a little bit. The first thing that's going to need to be done is to start downsizing the agency."
...

Ebell's goal would cut EPA's staff to about a third of its current size. "I think it's a very steep goal," he said. "If you're going to get anywhere, you've got to have high aspirations."

Ebell, a vocal critic of the EPA's policies under President Obama, said he sees some obvious places for cuts.

Much of EPA's budget passes through the agency toward clean water and clean air programs that are run by the states. "That raises the question," Ebell said. "What are all these people in the EPA air and safe drinking water offices doing?"

And he said the Obama administration's move to put air staff into a climate program was an indication that they weren't needed in the air office. "It seems to me that there are real opportunities for cuts there," he said.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049052

murphaph

ceegee wrote: »

Just seen the footage of Spicer talking about how Trump had sat down with Martin Luther King Jr a few days ago....

Used to think the bumbling press secretary in Veep was unrealistically stupid, but Spicer is proving me wrong so far.

The guy doesn't even have a good command of the English language. A journo asked him some question with the word "whittling" and he repeated the word in his answer but it sounded like "weedling" or something. For this job, you should really have an excellent command of your own language.

Mr.Micro

murphaph wrote: »

The guy doesn't even have a good command of the English language. A journo asked him some question with the word "whittling" and he repeated the word in his answer but it sounded like "weedling" or something. For this job, you should really have an excellent command of your own language.

Well it does not seem to matter anymore when the US has a president that has many attributes that are abhorrent to most people, bigotry, racist, sexist, advocates torture, and the list goes on. I would say the guy is well qualified with a leader like that.

recedite

Billy86 wrote: »

No, this might come as a surprise to you but being essentially the official state propagandist does not add to one's credibility.

So, if the personnel dept. tells you that you are fired, you can just reply "I'm not listening to your propaganda" ?

Harika wrote: »

I would call that a different interpretation. Calling the half full or half empty glass fuller than the half full or half empty glass of four years ago emptier would be an alternative fact.

No, that would be a lie.

I invite you, and any other rational person, to look at the facts around the KellyAnne Conway media generated scandal.
The clip of the interview is here on the Guardian webpage, and that (anti-Trump) newspaper presents the following alternative facts;

Conway’s use of the term was in reference to White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s comments about last week’s inauguration attracting “the largest audience ever”. Her interview was widely criticized..

These are indeed facts, but they are taken out of context and biased in favour of an alternative narrative.Therefore the Guardian newspaper itself presents alternative facts, but not lies.

Now look at the fuller facts;

Se&#225 wrote: »

“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.”

—White House press secretary Sean Spicer, remarks to reporters, Jan. 21, 2017

And check out the man's clarification of that statement

White House press secretary Sean Spicer put a finer point on what he meant by an “audience” for the inauguration of Donald Trump, telling reporters on Monday that he didn’t suggest the in-person crowd was the biggest ever.
After repeated questioning from the White House press corps, Spicer said a statement he made over the weekend referred to the audience in total — that is, when including devices like tablets and phones and television.
“It was the total largest audience witnessed in person and around the globe,” Spicer said.

So yes, there are a lot of "alternative facts" being bandied about, and none of the people directly involved were telling lies. Everyone has their own agenda, including and especially the various media corporations.

KellyAnne Conway should be fired for failing to defend herself against insinuations being made by the NBC interviewer that her "alternative facts" were "falsehoods". That's what allowed the story to grow legs.

Feel free to join the idiots in certain media around the world who parrot the NBC guy's line if you want, but the truth is out there, and fairly easily available.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

So, if the personnel dept. tells you that you are fired, you can just reply "I'm not listening to your propaganda" ?

If you resign and your higher ups who have a long, well known history of lying come out and tell people you were fired, people will be right to be skeptical at the very least.

And if Comical Ali during the Iraq invasion had come out and said that nobody was defecting from Saddam, but had all actually just been fired by the Iraqi military nobody would have believed him either. Because he had a long, well known history of lying.

recedite

Inquitus wrote: »

And here's today's pipeline leak, these pipelines leak regularly, do a google news search, this is why the Sioux don't want the Dakota Pipeline to traverse their property and flow under their reservoir, the Missouri River, a valid and fair concern.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/26/511636325/its-a-big-one-iowa-pipeline-leaks-nearly-140-000-gallons-of-diesel

Fair point, they do leak. But if the oil was sent by tanker ship, the accidents would be worse.
If a pipeline leaks, most of the oil can be recovered quickly by "sucking up" the spillage. A tanker spill in the Arctic ocean or Hudson Bay would be a real disaster, killing seabirds polar bears etc. None of it could be mopped up, except off the beaches for years afterwards.

So what's your preferred method of oil transfer?
Maybe just stop using oil? I presume you don't drive a car, or use a bus then. Or eat food transported to the supermarket by lorries, or farmed using tractors.

Water John

It comes in the same frame as DT saying that the President of Mexico and himself had agreed not to meet, when everyone knows it was the President of Mexico's decision.

recedite

Water John wrote: »

It comes in the same frame as DT saying that the President of Mexico and himself had agreed not to meet, when everyone knows it was the President of Mexico's decision.

More alternative facts. Yes it was the President of Mexico's "decision", but only after Trump had strongly "suggested" it would be best.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/trump-suggests-canceling-mexico-meeting-in-tweet-1.13017742

rgossip30

murphaph wrote: »

The guy doesn't even have a good command of the English language. A journo asked him some question with the word "whittling" and he repeated the word in his answer but it sounded like "weedling" or something. For this job, you should really have an excellent command of your own language.

Perhaps you also don't hear too good because you are blinded by hate .

Billy86 wrote: »

If you resign and your higher ups who have a long, well known history of lying come out and tell people you were fired, people will be right to be skeptical at the very least.

And if Comical Ali during the Iraq invasion had come out and said that nobody was defecting from Saddam, but had all actually just been fired by the Iraqi military nobody would have believed him either. Because he had a long, well known history of lying.

Hillary would never have lied as President .

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and Guantanamo Bay closed.

Seeing as how we've suddenly changed the definition of getting things done, and all.

Obama closed Guantanamo and let out the now IS leaders .

Harika

recedite wrote: »

The clip of the interview is here on the Guardian webpage, and that (anti-Trump) newspaper presents the following alternative facts;These are indeed facts, but they are taken out of context and biased in favour of an alternative narrative.Therefore the Guardian newspaper itself presents alternative facts, but not lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcBblq-QOo4

You can watch the full interview here, not just the snippets.

recedite wrote: »

—White House press secretary Sean Spicer, remarks to reporters, Jan. 21, 2017

What Spicer is doing is damage control after they were called out on their BS. Fact is, there were less people there in person and on telly. http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/donald-trump-inauguration-ratings-30-6-million-obama-1201966171/ and for online, there are simply no numbers available, so in the best case it was a guess, but with such a narcisistic person on top, who sees itself as best, no matter what, it is far more likley that this agenda was pushed. And as others here stated before "both in person and around the globe" clearly indicates for me that both apply, not the sum of it.

recedite wrote: »

KellyAnne Conway should be fired for failing to defend herself against insinuations being made by the NBC interviewer that her "alternative facts" were "falsehoods". That's what allowed the story to grow legs.

I totally agree, but will she be fired or any other clearly incompetent person from his team? No, some of them paid a lot of money to be there, so they will stay. Like Betsy DeVos.

weisses

recedite wrote: »

The land won't be polluted unless some terrorist blows up the pipeline, in which case I'm sure the Nimby's would be eligible for a large state compo payment.

Why do you find it okay that immigrants are destroying the native people

I always found you very straightforward when it comes to immigrants ... But now I'm confused

robinph

recedite wrote: »

—White House press secretary Sean Spicer, remarks to reporters, Jan. 21, 2017

Anyone with a basic grasp of the English language will take the press secretary's initial statement to mean largest in person and separately largest around the globe.

This meaning is repeatedly confirmed when Trump himself continues to claim there were more people there in person. It is Trump that made a story out of it, and it is Trump that continues to keep the story alive by letting it get to him.

Inquitus wrote: »

Trumps latest round of lies, his narcissism still fails to allow him to let go of the key truths around his lack of comparative popularity........biggest inauguration ever, won the popular vote due to 3.5-5m people voting illegally, he cannot let these things go. SAD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DyBloAhY0s

Water John

DT even had time to ring the Head of National Parks looking for photos with diff angles. Priorities in his life?

rgossip30

robinph wrote: »

Anyone with a basic grasp of the English language will take the press secretary's initial statement to mean largest in person and separately largest around the globe.

This meaning is repeatedly confirmed when Trump himself continues to claim there were more people there in person. It is Trump that made a story out of it, and it is Trump that continues to keep the story alive by letting it get to him.

The only confusion is the angle of the photos from the monument as opposed to those facing the monument giving a different outlook .
One can be excused for thinking the time the photo was taken from the monument was earlier or later but it is proven otherwise .

Harika

rgossip30 wrote: »

The only confusion is the angle of the photos from the monument as opposed to those facing the monument giving a different outlook .

It is only confusing when you encounter it first, then a lot of nice people will explain the effect to you and give you the inside information you need to understand it. If it continues to be confusing, it should show us all how important education really is.

robinph

rgossip30 wrote: »

The only confusion is the angle of the photos from the monument as opposed to those facing the monument giving a different outlook .

But that is only a confusion if you think they are meant to show the same thing.

If you want a picture for sticking on the wall of your new, not quite circular office to show you speaking in front of a big crowd then you get the photographer to stand behind you, make yourself the centre of the picture and then have a sea of heads trailing off into the distance.

If you are looking for a picture to show how many people are in the crowd then you take a picture from above and behind the crowd with what they are looking at way off in the distance.

rgossip30

Harika wrote: »

It is only confusing when you encounter it first, then a lot of nice people will explain the effect to you and give you the inside information you need to understand it. If it continues to be confusing, it should show us all how important education really is.

I am educated so I am not confused and those nice people are my mentors .

FreudianSlippers

"Educated" means very different things to different people IMO. Is this post-truth alternative fact educated or like the actual meaning of the word?

rgossip30

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

"Educated" means very different things to different people IMO. Is this post-truth alternative fact educated or like the actual meaning of the word?

I will leave it to you to elaborate if you feel the need to analyse or over analyse to be precise .

recedite

robinph wrote: »

Anyone with a basic grasp of the English language will take the press secretary's initial statement to mean largest in person and separately largest around the globe.

Even if the actual word he used was "both" and not "separately"?
C'mon now, be honest. At least admit it was open to alternative interpretations until Spicer clarified his own words.

Nobody really cares about the crowd size on the day anyway. It's well known that Trump's support base is far from Washington DC. He even launched an attack on "Washington", while in Washington, during his inaugural speech, saying he was taking power back and giving it to the people.

recedite

weisses wrote: »

Why do you find it okay that immigrants are destroying the native people

I always found you very straightforward when it comes to immigrants ... But now I'm confused

Not destroying them, that was done a long time ago. Just building a pipeline through their reservation.

But yeah, Native American history is a sobering warning of what can happen when you allow uncontrolled immigration of people with a higher birth rate.

Did you know that most of those reservations are not even on the tribes ancestral lands? They were sent to the badlands, as in the old Cromwellian message; "to hell or to Connaught".

BabyCheeses

recedite wrote: »

More alternative facts. Yes it was the President of Mexico's "decision", but only after Trump had strongly "suggested" it would be best.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/trump-suggests-canceling-mexico-meeting-in-tweet-1.13017742

Wasn't that after the Mexican president had already said they were considering to cancel?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/25/mexico-enrique-pena-nieto-trump-border-wall

robinph

recedite wrote: »

Even if the actual word he used was "both" and not "separately"?
C'mon now, be honest. At least admit it was open to alternative interpretations until Spicer clarified his own words.

Nobody really cares about the crowd size on the day anyway. It's well known that Trump's support base is far from Washington DC. He even launched an attack on "Washington", while in Washington, during his inaugural speech, saying he was taking power back and giving it to the people.

If you were to look at that single half a sentence on it's own, and thought it was being said by someone using English as a second language or a child then maybe.

But in the middle of that press briefing where the sole purpose of the briefing was to have a go at the media for daring to suggest that Trump was not the greatest thing since great things were invented then no. There is absolutely no way he meant combined numbers when he said it.

a dictionary wrote:

both
used before the first of two alternatives to emphasize that the statement being made applies to each (the other alternative being introduced by ‘and’).

FreudianSlippers

rgossip30 wrote: »

I will leave it to you to elaborate if you feel the need to analyse or over analyse to be precise .

I was half-joking, but on further reflection "educated" is extraordinarily subjective. One might think someone with an undergraduate degree is "educated"; another might think subjectively that finishing high school / leaving cert makes a person "educated"; another might think having a master's degree makes a person "educated"; whilst someone else might scoff at that with their PhD; which a medical doctor might find equally as scoff-worthy.

recedite

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Wasn't that after the Mexican president had already said they were considering to cancel?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/25/mexico-enrique-pena-nieto-trump-border-wall

Yes, I accept that is also true.
If we add up all these alternative facts, would it be fair to say that "both" the POTUS and the President of Mexico had arrived at an agreement not to meet?

"Both" defined here as "collectively, but not necessarily while in the same place"

Water John wrote: »

It comes in the same frame as DT saying that the President of Mexico and himself had agreed not to meet, when everyone knows it was the President of Mexico's decision.