Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

gandalf · 23-01-2017 01:03PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Not the way I see it, or the media approach, everything is over Obama's inauguration, Trumps inauguration, photos comparing the two, then photos of Clinton, Bushs, etc.

Then debates over numbers and 'alternative facts' I feel the message of the protesters has been drowned out.

The following is a selection of results obtained from the first couple of pages for the search "inauguration crowd compared with protest crowds".

Not only did he lose the quest to beat his arch nemesis Obama's figures it looks like the protest the next day may have even surpassed his precious numbers or at least got enhanced coverage because the toys were thrown out of "bottle blonds" pram.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/21/500000-expected-attend-womens-march-washington-metro-crowded/96880138/
http://uk.businessinsider.com/womens-march-versus-trump-inauguration-attendance-2017-1?r=US&IR=T
http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/21/14336068/photos-womens-march-vs-trump-inauguration
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315492-crowd-comparison-of-inauguration-dc-march
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/womens-march-donald-trump-inauguration-sizes/

23-01-2017 01:04PM

seamus wrote: »

I think the only reason it's become an issue now is because the White House has officially lied about the turnout. It has claimed that not only was it bigger than reported, but that it was the biggest turnout in history.

People are used to their government putting spin on things and making excuses.

But now their government has flatly lied. Absolute lies, not just different perspectives, but straight out lies. That's on a par with North Korean broadcasts about their magnanimous World Cup victories.

Until they did that, the turnout was a chuckling point - "look what a dingus Trump is".

Here is Obama flat-out lying about Hillary's server in an interview.. And some of the proof that they wanted to cover it up.

I don't want to get into a debate about the emails but it's a bit rich to start claiming that Trump invented the concept of American politicians lying to the public. And because of that, compare him to Kim Jong Un.

23-01-2017 01:06PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Is fifteen minutes really ages ago…

If it was posted 16 minutes ago, then yeah, 15 minutes ago is absolutely ages. I'm surprised you even saw it. I deleted it when I realised which news was being talked about.

red ears · 23-01-2017 01:06PM

Are people really highlighting that politicians lie as some sort of revelation? It will have zero impact on Trumps voters.

Hank Scorpio · 23-01-2017 01:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is Obama flat-out lying about Hillary's server in an interview.. And some of the proof that they wanted to cover it up.

I don't want to get into a debate about the emails but it's a bit rich to start claiming that Trump invented the concept of American politicians lying to the public. And because of that, compare him to Kim Jong Un.

Benghazi is quickly forgotten about, one of the biggest lies told in history.

Butters1979 · 23-01-2017 01:08PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The leak most likely tipped the balance in Trumps favour. It was timed for maximum effect. If they had leaked Trumps secrets it would have gone the other way

I don't know how I'm a sore loser. I didn't lose anything nor did I support Clinton. You just can't take it that someone not aligned to Clinton might be criticising your supreme leader. You need a motive, you can't accept people just think he is bad.

Ok when I say sore loser it's the general reactions and excuses I hear about Trump, it's not directed at you specifically.

This leaked emails thing, first I don't think it 'swung' much at all. But even if it did, the issue is not that they were released, the issue is the truth they revealed if the first place.

It's similar the 'grab them by the p****' tape. It was released to influence the election. From a Trump standpoint the problem isn't with who released the tape. The problem is it existed in the first place. He should never have said it.

But instead of seeing the content of the emails and what they revealed as what may have cost her the election, you see the fact they were leaked as what is to blame.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You just can't take it that someone not aligned to Clinton might be criticising your supreme leader. You need a motive, you can't accept people just think he is bad.

Come on, you can be better than that. I can accept and understand that people think he's bad. I see plenty of problems with him, but he was a reaction to problems in America and across the world. It's not about him verses Clinton, it was an anti liberal result. And that's why liberals are so angry. Not with Trump, but with the reason so many voted for him despite how he is clearly a poor candidate.

BBDBB · 23-01-2017 01:09PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I understand why people think he's bad, what I don't understand is the comparisons to Castro, Hitler and Stalin. If people want a serious conversation back and fourth they're not going to get it with such statements.

And for the record, there's zero proof linking Russia to Wikileaks, and even Obama admitted a few days ago they don't have proof of that either.

I made the comparison to Stalin, because he did have flunkies who would attend his speeches, their role was to start the standing ovations, during and at the end of his oration. Based on the quoted post that is a valid comparison to make.

For complete accuracy
A more sinister side of the Stalin cheerleaders was to note who joined the applause late, was less than enthusiastic in their appreciation and who finished/sat down first, those individuals often got a knock on their door at 3am and were never seen again. I am not making such an accusation re Trump

Sonics2k · 23-01-2017 01:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is Obama flat-out lying about Hillary's server in an interview.. And some of the proof that they wanted to cover it up.

I don't want to get into a debate about the emails but it's a bit rich to start claiming that Trump invented the concept of American politicians lying to the public. And because of that, compare him to Kim Jong Un.

I think people expect lies from Politicians. Sure we all sat back and watched Bush lie about WMD's in Iraq, Clinton about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky or Nixon about Watergate.

I think whats really rattled people about this (or at least me) is that he lied about something as petty as the numbers at the inauguration. He outright declared the media was lying. They then threatened the media and implied they'd remove media access to the White House.

It was just such a petty thing to lie about, especially on the first day.

23-01-2017 01:13PM

Butters1979 wrote: »

It's similar the 'grab them by the p****' tape. It was released to influence the election. From a Trump standpoint the problem isn't with who released the tape. The problem is it existed in the first place. He should never have said it.

But instead of seeing the content of the emails and what they revealed as what may have cost her the election, you see the fact they were leaked as what is to blame.

It would be the funniest thing in the world if Putin came out and said he released the tape of Trump.. People would be so confused about what and who to hate. It would be the ultimate meltdown.

Butters1979 · 23-01-2017 01:15PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

I think people expect lies from Politicians. Sure we all sat back and watched Bush lie about WMD's in Iraq, Clinton about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky or Nixon about Watergate.

I think whats really rattled people about this (or at least me) is that he lied about something as petty as the numbers at the inauguration. He outright declared the media was lying. They then threatened the media and implied they'd remove media access to the White House.

It was just such a petty thing to lie about, especially on the first day.

I'd agree with that. It showed a lack of maturity. Obama got more people, that was expected, who cares? It's like xFactor or something.

23-01-2017 01:17PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

I think people expect lies from Politicians. Sure we all sat back and watched Bush lie about WMD's in Iraq, Clinton about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky or Nixon about Watergate.

I think whats really rattled people about this (or at least me) is that he lied about something as petty as the numbers at the inauguration. He outright declared the media was lying. They then threatened the media and implied they'd remove media access to the White House.

It was just such a petty thing to lie about, especially on the first day.

You can do two things..

1. Compare him to Kim Jong Un.
2. Accept that he's not a politician and will never act accordingly. He's just a 70-year-old rich retard with an ego who's smart enough to play the media.

I choose 2 because he isn't a dictator. He's a celebrity going on a tantrum because people ruined his big day. Criticise him for that all you want but seriously, comparing him to Stalin? Madness.

Hank Scorpio · 23-01-2017 01:17PM

BBDBB wrote: »

I made the comparison to Stalin, because he did have flunkies who would attend his speeches, their role was to start the standing ovations, during and at the end of his oration. Based on the quoted post that is a valid comparison to make.

For complete accuracy
A more sinister side of the Stalin cheerleaders was to note who joined the applause late, was less than enthusiastic in their appreciation and who finished/sat down first, those individuals often got a knock on their door at 3am and were never seen again. I am not making such an accusation re Trump

Nevermind things can get heated, nothing personal, sometimes I attack those posts even though I know it's mostly just kidding around.

On that note time to Mow the lawn.

jooksavage · 23-01-2017 01:18PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

It was just such a petty thing to lie about, especially on the first day.

That's it precisely. When 2+2=5 for this, it'll be the same exact same for everything else. It's going to hard going, the media are up against an administration that has (a) no shame and (b) an infinite capacity to deny reality.

Trent Houseboat · 23-01-2017 01:20PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It would be the funniest thing in the world if Putin came out and said he released the tape of Trump.. People would be so confused about what and who to hate. It would be the ultimate meltdown.

Some people think it's an either or. I could continue to dislike both putin and Trump at the same time even if they turned on each other.
But then again, I'm not a basic, binary bitch.

You could just as easily say that right wingers wouldn't know whose lies to continue to defend. It would be the ultimate meltdown.

Sonics2k · 23-01-2017 01:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You can do two things..

1. Compare him to Kim Jong Un.
2. Accept that he's not a politician and will never act accordingly. He's just a 70-year-old rich retard with an ego who's smart enough to play the media.

I choose 2 because he isn't a dictator. He's a celebrity going on a tantrum because people ruined his big day. Criticise him for that all you want but seriously, comparing him to Stalin? Madness.

He's not a dictator and he never will be. As much people talk about it, we'll probably never see someone like Hitler or Stalin in the Western World in our lifetimes.

That's not to say that people cannot make comparisons between Trump and Hitler/Stalin because there are legitimate comparisons to be made and have been made.

Hande hoche! · 23-01-2017 01:25PM

Butters1979 wrote: »

I'd agree with that. It showed a lack of maturity. Obama got more people, that was expected, who cares? It's like xFactor or something.

Butters1979 · 23-01-2017 01:29PM

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Ok I spat my coffee over my keyboard there. Take a bow son.

23-01-2017 01:32PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Some people think it's an either or. I could continue to dislike both putin and Trump at the same time even if they turned on each other.
But then again, I'm not a basic, binary bitch.

You could just as easily say that right wingers wouldn't know whose lies to continue to defend. It would be the ultimate meltdown.

I think the last few months have proven "the left" is absolutely hilarious when they have a meltdown.. That's what I'm basing this on. The right, lacking a moral highground, would just get on with things.

If they lost their entire reason for Hillary losing, they'd be shell-shocked. Hate is the only thing keeping a lot of my friends going.. Some non-Americans who actually wept when he got elected. They blame Putin 100% for Hillary losing.

Why do I not care about their pain? Because they straight up called me an immature child for supporting Sanders and a sexist racist for being anti-Clinton in the general. I don't see them much anymore.

gandalf · 23-01-2017 01:33PM

Butters1979 wrote: »

Ok I spat my coffee over my keyboard there. Take a bow son.

Yeah the fecker I am wiping baked beans off my laptop now!

gandalf · 23-01-2017 01:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the last few months have proven "the left" is absolutely hilarious when they have a meltdown.. That's what I'm basing this on. The right, lacking a moral highground, would just get on with things.

Errr the Alt Right, Right administration just had a very public meltdown over something as petty as the numbers who turned up to the inauguration. ROFLOL

ChikiChiki · 23-01-2017 01:35PM

Politicians lie all the time we all know that. A politician holding the most powerful office in the world dispatching his team to put out such a blatent lie when there is a huge amount of evidence to the contrary on his second day in office is certainly not a good sign.

23-01-2017 01:36PM

gandalf wrote: »

Errr the Alt Right, Right administration just had a very public meltdown over something as petty as the numbers who turned up to the inauguration. ROFLOL

Supporters.. I didn't see a meltdown. Just a lot of "Who cares.. It's DC."

gandalf · 23-01-2017 01:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Supporters.. I didn't see a meltdown. Just a lot of "Who cares.. It's DC."

Donald does

The_Valeyard · 23-01-2017 01:40PM

gandalf wrote: »

The following is a selection of results obtained from the first couple of pages for the search "inauguration crowd compared with protest crowds".

Not only did he lose the quest to beat his arch nemesis Obama's figures it looks like the protest the next day may have even surpassed his precious numbers or at least got enhanced coverage because the toys were thrown out of "bottle blonds" pram.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/21/500000-expected-attend-womens-march-washington-metro-crowded/96880138/
http://uk.businessinsider.com/womens-march-versus-trump-inauguration-attendance-2017-1?r=US&IR=T
http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/21/14336068/photos-womens-march-vs-trump-inauguration
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315492-crowd-comparison-of-inauguration-dc-march
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/womens-march-donald-trump-inauguration-sizes/

But that has nothin to do with the point I was making????

Hank Scorpio · 23-01-2017 01:41PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inauguration-day-protests-felony-rioting-charges-federal-prosecutors-say/

Felony rioting charges will be a fairly severe detriment to possible future rioting

23-01-2017 01:41PM

gandalf wrote: »

Donald does

To quote myself..

He's a celebrity going on a tantrum because people ruined his big day. Criticise him for that all you want but seriously, comparing him to Stalin? Madness.

That doesn't mean his supporters are doing the same.. They're too busy trying to find that woman who set a Trump supporter's hair on fire during the inauguration.

Trent Houseboat · 23-01-2017 01:43PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the last few months have proven "the left" is absolutely hilarious when they have a meltdown.. That's what I'm basing this on. The right, lacking a moral highground, would just get on with things.

If they lost their entire reason for Hillary losing, they'd be shell-shocked. Hate is the only thing keeping a lot of my friends going.. Some non-Americans who actually wept when he got elected. They blame Putin 100% for Hillary losing.

Why do I not care about their pain? Because they straight up called me an immature child for supporting Sanders and a sexist racist for being anti-Clinton in the general. I don't see them much anymore.

I get that you like meltdowns(way to prove the people who called you an immature child wrong by the way), but why do you think that the left would have a meltdown if two individuals they tend not to like turned on each other.

seamus · 23-01-2017 01:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is Obama flat-out lying about Hillary's server in an interview.. And some of the proof that they wanted to cover it up.

I don't want to get into a debate about the emails but it's a bit rich to start claiming that Trump invented the concept of American politicians lying to the public. And because of that, compare him to Kim Jong Un.

You're kind of proving my point really with that.

That's not flat-out lying. That's talking around the truth, coming up with perspectives that are true. Obama can say, "I" wasn't aware, and it can be true in the strictest sense.

Whether or not he was being honest is then something that can be assessed, and something that you may have to take on balance.

What the trump team did was not true from any perspective. What they said was objectively and undeniably false.

I agree that politicians do lie all the time. Speaking out both sides of their mouths, clever wordplay, etc etc.

Bare-faced lies - saying things which are absolute mistruths - are far rarer, and usually reserved for dictatorial regimes like NK or Russia, where the media can be controlled.

That's what makes this lie so much more of an issue than something Obama may have said during the campaign.

Bare-faced lies are exactly what end presidencies; Watergate and Lewinksy being the big two.

Trump's administration have made a huge bare-faced lie about the tiniest, most inconsequential of matters.

That sets out a stall for 4 years of incredibility. Absolutely every statement made by any Trump representative must now be assumed to be false or mostly false unless proven otherwise.

gandalf · 23-01-2017 01:44PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

But that has nothin to do with the point I was making????

No you were saying the protesters message was being drowned out. I disagreed not only did they get full coverage from the press, because the numbers were seen as an issue for the new administration they then gave the protests additional coverage comparing their numbers with the numbers at the inauguration. They therefore magnified their coverage. If the Trump admin ignored the figures and just carried on they would have avoided that comparison and saved themselves a lot of grief and maintained their credibility.

B0jangles · 23-01-2017 01:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do I not care about their pain? Because they straight up called me an immature child for supporting Sanders and a sexist racist for being anti-Clinton in the general. I don't see them much anymore.

Wellll...looks like we got ourselves a Snowflake over here Sarge...

You know what we do to snowflakes, 'round these parts dontcha sonny?

*smacks baton in palm of hand meaningfully*

this is a joke, an obvious joke, please do not get all offended

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Comments