U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[mariomike]

"The trick, then, is to accurately measure the square feet in the total area occupied by the crowd and divide it by the appropriate figure, depending on assessment of crowd density. Thanks to aerial photos or mapping applications like Google Earth, even outdoor areas can be readily measured these days."


I have to look up some of these quoted sources of information I have never heard of ( outside of Radio Chatter ). 
From Reply #3255,
The Gateway Pundit
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

When it comes to news I'd trust you 100 times more than cnn etc..   

"Russians are playing @CNN and @NBCNews for such fools - funny to watch, they don't have a clue! @FoxNews totally gets it!"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/814958820980039681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

"After 1968 the history of the Left can be told as a story of sour grapes." David Chandler

Take me back to anytime AFTER they drafted Elvis into the Army, and BEFORE the Beatles arrived in New York. 

Don't care which party the President or Prime Minister belong to. 


Alternative facts, fake news and Trump's war on mainstream media

The experts estimate the 470,000 participated in the at the women's march in DC. And when attendance at similar marches in other US states are thrown in, the total protest is estimated to have included from one million to 2.6 million people.

That makes them the biggest protests since the Vietnam War; and in anyone's language, a passionate pushback to a new presidency.

Trump inauguration the most poorly attended in more than 20 years. Here are the figures: Obama, 2009 - 1.8 million; Obama, 2013 - 1 million; Bush, 2001 - 300 000; Bush 2005 - 400 000; Clinton, 1993 - 800 000; Clinton, 1997 - 250 000.

Trump can't pretend to be surprised. He knew that he lost the popular vote by a good 3 million votes; that he squeaked through the Electoral College thanks to just a handful of votes in three states; and that, historically, he's the least popular incoming president - ever.

And he can't erase the facts that the Russian hacking and the FBI's weird intervention late in the campaign took some of the wind out of Hillary Clinton's campaign sails, thereby leaving many questioning the legitimacy of his "greatest win ever".
http://www.smh.com.au/world/alternative-facts-fake-news-and-trumps-war-on-mainstream-media-20170122-gtwmdl.html

While there are undoubtedly a large number of hard core Trumpists who will continue to believe anything he, or his people, say, one has to wonder just how long the mass of the people (and not just the so-called snowflakes) will put up with this?

:goodpost:

 

[PuckChaser]

Yes, this link is IJR, but it at least has photos with credits to Getty image photographers to compare the 2 crowds, instead of a Buzzfeed-esque twitter post with no credit and 140 characters of biased opinion. I really don't think the White House is right, but neither is the media and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Of course Obama would have had a bigger crowd in 2009, he was the first Black president, it was a nice day outside, and he enjoyed a large basis of local support. Trump had neither of those things and still managed a respectable-sized crowd.

http://ijr.com/2017/01/783445-trump-vs-obama-inauguration-here-are-the-real-photos-you-decide/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica

 

[Flavus101]

When you provide such a wide range estimate of 1 million to 2.6 million people I question whether or not you have any idea what you are talking about.

Not you specifically mariomike, just the so called "experts" who provided the figures.

 

[Flavus101]

My above post was in reference to the statement about the number of people who participated in the women's marches around the globe.

Not that I really care about the numbers as 2 million isn't the majority of women on the planet, and we all know that everything must revolve around majorities.

 

[mariomike]

There's just too many to list! 

Protests against Donald Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Inauguration_protests

2017 Women's March
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women%27s_March

President Bush Sr. was in Toronto twice, and Reagan once. Both were well received, as I recall.

President Obama's visits to Toronto and Ottawa were described as "love-ins" by the police.

When Obama was in Toronto, the G20 was on. There were protests, but I do not believe they were directed towards him personally.

Barack Obama's rapturous reception in Canada draws White House reaction
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/barack-obama-white-house-reaction-1.3661152
The U.S. president's speech in the House of Commons netted about four-dozen applause breaks


Be interesting to see what sort of reception the new president receives, should he venture into Canada.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There's just too many to list! 

Protests against Donald Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Inauguration_protests

2017 Women's March
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women%27s_March

President Bush Sr. was in Toronto twice, and Reagan once. Both were well received, as I recall.

President Obama's visits to Toronto and Ottawa were described as "love-ins" by the police.

When Obama was in Toronto, the G20 was on. There were protests, but I do not believe they were directed towards him personally.

Be interesting to see what sort of reception the new president receives, should he venture into Canada.

"The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be."

Socrates

 

[Brad Sallows]

I assume the Trump administration is trying to spin the crowd size favourably, but I suppose their lie will have less impact than "you can keep your doctor".  Remember how much the press blew up over that one when it was uttered?

 

[daftandbarmy]

I thought Shakespeare would come up with a line like that! 

"He did, Shaw, he did!."

 

[Loachman]

a passionate pushback to a new presidency.

By a pack of dysfunctional non-adults looking for any excuse to be offended and throw collective tantrums.

he lost the popular vote by a good 3 million votes

Irrelevant.

And candidates do not campaign to win the national popular vote, but for the most state popular votes, the values of which are weighted by the number of congressional seats in each.

Mr Trump's campaign was designed to succeed in the right contest, and it did.

he squeaked through the Electoral College thanks to just a handful of votes in three states

More than his opponent did, and more than enough. And in Democrat-leaning states, as well.

historically, he's the least popular incoming president - ever.

Not that any of the pre-election polls reflected reality, either... Pollsters aim to please those who pay them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDQrldGmPU

Russian hacking and the FBI's weird intervention late in the campaign took some of the wind out of Hillary Clinton's campaign sails, thereby leaving many questioning the legitimacy of his "greatest win ever".

The Democrats picked the worst possible candidate. She ran a very poor campaign. She failed to connect with too many people, and took previous Democratic-leaning voters in rust belt states for granted, and enough of them bought into Mr Trump's message.

She should have been disqualified just for being under multiple FBI investigations - a single one will prevent anybody under it from applying for any federal US job.

The FBI should have referred the illegal and insecure e-mail server investigation to the Department of Justice for prosecution. There was more than enough evidence to do so. Perhaps we will eventually learn why that did not happen, as well as why Comey reversed himself twice (many believe that he did so the second time because he did not want to "commit suicide", or be "robbed" like Seth Rich).

Several investigations are continuing, and may well - and should - result in serious charges. She would have been the first presidential candidate to have been elected while undergoing multiple FBI investigations, likely the first to have been prosecuted for numerous actual crimes while in office, and the first to have been ineligible for a security clearance. Political influence may have shielded her, as it has shielded Bill as well for far too long, for a while at least, but their crimes will catch up to them eventually. Impeachment was assured regardless.

Her health problems were also a concern to many.

The Project Veritas Action videos, wherein a small group of journalists infiltrated the Clinton campaign and supporting organizations, and surreptitiously filmed their boasts of stealing the nomination from Bernie Sanders and violently disrupting Mr Trump's rallies, and their illegal schemes for swaying the election results, did as much damage to Clinton as the Wikileaks did - and that was completely the efforts of Americans.

I have yet to see evidence of actual Russian interference, and even Julian Assange has stated, several times, that his source was not Russian. There are other theories of equal validity, one involving Seth Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich. Julian Assange hinted that Mr Rich might have been the source, but he will not reveal his source directly.

Exit polls did not point to Wikileaks revelations as the main reason why people did not vote for her, but economy and jobs.

She lost, and rightfully so.

Mr Trump won, and rightfully so.

And, more importantly, America won.

 

[daftandbarmy]

By a pack of dysfunctional non-adults looking for any excuse to be offended and throw collective tantrums.

Irrelevant.

And candidates do not campaign to win the national popular vote, but for the most state popular votes, the values of which are weighted by the number of congressional seats in each.

Mr Trump's campaign was designed to succeed in the right contest, and it did.

More than his opponent did, and more than enough. And in Democrat-leaning states, as well.

Not that any of the pre-election polls reflected reality, either... Pollsters aim to please those who pay them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDQrldGmPU

The Democrats picked the worst possible candidate. She ran a very poor campaign. She failed to connect with too many people, and took previous Democratic-leaning voters in rust belt states for granted, and enough of them bought into Mr Trump's message.

She should have been disqualified just for being under multiple FBI investigations - a single one will prevent anybody under it from applying for any federal US job.

The FBI should have referred the illegal and insecure e-mail server investigation to the Department of Justice for prosecution. There was more than enough evidence to do so. Perhaps we will eventually learn why that did not happen, as well as why Comey reversed himself twice (many believe that he did so the second time because he did not want to "commit suicide", or be "robbed" like Seth Rich).

Several investigations are continuing, and may well - and should - result in serious charges. She would have been the first presidential candidate to have been elected while undergoing multiple FBI investigations, likely the first to have been prosecuted for numerous actual crimes while in office, and the first to have been ineligible for a security clearance. Political influence may have shielded her, as it has shielded Bill as well for far too long, for a while at least, but their crimes will catch up to them eventually. Impeachment was assured regardless.

Her health problems were also a concern to many.

The Project Veritas Action videos, wherein a small group of journalists infiltrated the Clinton campaign and supporting organizations, and surreptitiously filmed their boasts of stealing the nomination from Bernie Sanders and violently disrupting Mr Trump's rallies, and their illegal schemes for swaying the election results, did as much damage to Clinton as the Wikileaks did - and that was completely the efforts of Americans.

I have yet to see evidence of actual Russian interference, and even Julian Assange has stated, several times, that his source was not Russian. There are other theories of equal validity, one involving Seth Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich. Julian Assange hinted that Mr Rich might have been the source, but he will not reveal his source directly.

Exit polls did not point to Wikileaks revelations as the main reason why people did not vote for her, but economy and jobs.

She lost, and rightfully so.

Mr Trump won, and rightfully so.

And, more importantly, America won.

And, two words: Pant Suit

 

[mariomike]

Regarding Reply #3269. I can't take credit for the quotes. They belong to this source,

"Alternative facts, fake news and Trump's war on mainstream media"
http://www.smh.com.au/world/alternative-facts-fake-news-and-trumps-war-on-mainstream-media-20170122-gtwmdl.html

By a pack of dysfunctional non-adults looking for any excuse to be offended and throw collective tantrums.

In another post,

While there are undoubtedly a large number of hard core Trumpists who will continue to believe anything he, or his people, say, one has to wonder just how long the mass of the people (and not just the so-called snowflakes) will put up with this?

These protests are not easy to ignore.

"This marks the protest as the largest combined protest across the United States."

Associated Press

Over 1 million join anti-Trump women's marches worldwide
https://apnews.com/de267a3227574cb182b953cb60e69ae2/Over-1-million-join-anti-Trump-women's-marches-worldwide

Reuters

Women lead unprecedented worldwide mass protests against Trump
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15608K

I don't believe anyone was arrested. It's not just the so-called "snowflakes".

She would have been the first presidential candidate to have been elected while undergoing multiple FBI investigations, likely the first to have been prosecuted for numerous actual crimes while in office, and the first to have been ineligible for a security clearance.

CNN
November 7, 2016
FBI clears Clinton -- again
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/comey-tells-congress-fbi-has-not-changed-conclusions/
"FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Sunday the agency hasn't changed its opinion that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges after a review of new emails."

Regarding Security Clearance,

January 16, 2017
Maclean's

"What is absolutely certain, however, is that if Trump were a cabinet nominee (and not a cabinet nominator) his many Kremlin connections, conflicts, and compromises would make it impossible for him to obtain a security clearance."
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/is-donald-trump-a-russian-agent/

Regarding mandatory retirement. In the US, Air traffic controllers have mandatory retirement at age 56.
Yet, they'll hand the codes to a 70 year-old man starting a four-year term.

What sort of welcome he can expect to receive in Canada, 

The Globe and Mail
"Sources familiar with the Trudeau government’s plans say Canadian officials are worried that mass protests would disrupt Mr. Trump’s visit to Canada, and that view has been shared with the President’s team."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-president-trump-and-prime-minister-trudeau-plan-to-meet/article33699643/

Thank-you for your post. I respect your opinions.

 

[Journeyman]

....a pack of dysfunctional non-adults looking for any excuse to be offended and throw collective tantrums.

Hell, that should be the sub-title of all  the political threads.  ;D

That, and "haters and cheerleaders; while there is no middle ground and any facts may be lies or alt-facts, there is no shortage of repetition."    :nod:

 

[Chispa]

What else can one expect from #Lyin'Trump and Kellyanne the Con is on her Way.


Lying lips Conway: White House press secretary (Spicer) gave "alternative facts" when he inaccurately described the inauguration crowd as "the largest ever" during his first appearance before the press this weekend.

Yes we know Alternative Facts... what a load of S.

C.U.

 

[Old Sweat]

What else can one expect from #Lyin'Trump and Kellyanne the Con is on her Way.


Lying lips Conway: White House press secretary (Spicer) gave "alternative facts" when he inaccurately described the inauguration crowd as "the largest ever" during his first appearance before the press this weekend.

Yes we know Alternative Facts... what a load of S.

C.U.

If one carefully parses the various statements from the Trumpistas, they were referring to the world-wide television audience as well as those in attendance. Unfortunately few of the commentators on either side of the issue cared to make the distinction. A pox on both their houses.

 

[Loachman]

CNN
November 7, 2016
FBI clears Clinton -- again
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/comey-tells-congress-fbi-has-not-changed-conclusions/
"FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Sunday the agency hasn't changed its opinion that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges after a review of new emails."

Of course he said that. He didn't want to commit suicide by shooting himself five times in the back while suspended from a rafter by his belt.

Seriously, there was so much corruption in the Department of Justice (and elsewhere) that he knew that no charges would be laid no matter what he said, presuming that Hillary won, of course.

Pressure was put on the FBI to drop the other investigations as well, but agents carried on regardless. She will look mighty fine in orange.

Regarding Security Clearance,

January 16, 2017
Maclean's

"What is absolutely certain, however, is that if Trump were a cabinet nominee (and not a cabinet nominator) his many Kremlin connections, conflicts, and compromises would make it impossible for him to obtain a security clearance."
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/is-donald-trump-a-russian-agent/

I was unaware that Macleans was the approval authority for security clearances in the US. Silly me.

Regarding mandatory retirement. In the US, Air traffic controllers have mandatory retirement at age 56.
Yet, they'll hand the codes to a 70 year-old man starting a four-year term.

Regarding mandatory retirement, "they'll" worry about an energetic, healthy, and successful seventy-year-old man's ability to make sound decisions but not about a Canadian senator being "allowed" to make far-reaching decisions until age seventy-five, a Supreme Court judge up until death at whatever age, or a corrupt, criminal, self-serving, viciously-tempered, seriously ill woman with a previous head injury that appears to be causing such severe continuing effects that she cannot function adequately at debates without an earpiece and prior knowledge of the questions and has sold herself to foreign governments for huge "donations".

Donald Trump is not "Air Traffic Controller of the United States". He is "President of the United States". There is a difference.

And the mandatory retirement age for commercial Pilots is sixty-five. Air Traffic Controllers must be lesser individuals.

As for the fakey-fakey then/now photographs purporting to show that Mr Trump had significantly fewer attendees than his predecessor, this CNN photograph http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/ was taken at the actual time of the ceremony and it looks pretty well attended to me - not a lot of the white spaces in that other photograph show up in this one.

I tried to find Waldo Technoviking, but not for long. He's not pretty enough.

Donald Trump won. He picked good people, and ran a very successful campaign at very little cost. Despite being told, at every step, that he would lose miserably, he defeated all of his Republican rivals and the "guaranteed to win" crooked Democrat. The Republicans gained Senate and House seats, and state governors. This was a bigger win than just the Electoral College.

Geographically, the Democrats cling to tiny patches of the US.

 

[Chispa]

If one carefully parses the various statements from the Trumpistas, they were referring to the world-wide television audience as well as those in attendance. Unfortunately few of the commentators on either side of the issue cared to make the distinction. A pox on both their houses.

That could be or disputing your comments Colonel…I wonder if the numbers have been manipulated by both sides..

Trumpistas...lol.

Trump boasts about inauguration viewing figures which were second biggest in 36 years (after Obama's 2009 inauguration).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4144546/Trump-inauguration-7mill-viewers-Obama.html

Trump Inauguration Draws TV Audience of 30.6 Mil, Down 19% vs. Obama 2009
http://tvline.com/2017/01/21/donald-trump-inauguration-ceremony-ratings/

Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years.
http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/

Trump inauguration draws nearly 31 million U.S. television viewers http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-ratings-idUSKBN15600S


C.U.

 

[Rifleman62]

It's OVER. The election and the inauguration. Who really cares about the crowd size (besides Trump and a few others)? Can't we close this down as others suggested and start the "Trump Presidency" or some such.

 

[Remius]

It's OVER. The election and the inauguration. Who really cares about the crowd size (besides Trump and a few others)? Can't we close this down as others suggested and start the "Trump Presidency" or some such.

Sure.  I agree.  except that The new POTUS still acts like he's in campaign mode lol.

 

[Loachman]

What else can one expect from

Blasphemer!!!

Kellyanne Conway is a Goddess.

Repent while ye may, face south, and beg forgiveness.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some more thoughts on defence, trade and Trump's targets (and we aren't one).

Based on this info I would suggest that the reason Trump is picking on the EU and NATO is the same reason he is picking on China and Mexico.  Massive trade imbalances.  Effectively the US is financing those countries.

In China's case the money is being used to finance a military competitor. 

In Europe's case the money isn't going to the military - the Europeans are coming up about 100 BUSD short in their contributions to NATO and using the funds from US trade for domestic programmes - at the same time they want the US to guarantee their defences and the defences of all of the new members of NATO.  Strangely, the sells 125 BUSD more to the US than it buys from them.

So the US has to make up a 100 BUSD in defence costs that the Euros aren't covering and puts out an additional 125 BUSD which finances their medical and retirement plans.

Meanwhile, if the Euros picked up the 100 BUSD in defence that they have "contracted" for, and restored their trade balance to the levels of Canada and the UK then the US would see an additional 250 BUSD in national revenues.




https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html

Rank Country Exports Imports Total Trade Percent of Total Trade
--- Total, All Countries 1,327.9 2,005.0 3,332.8 100.0%
--- Total, Top 15 Countries 933.5 1,563.3 2,496.8 74.9%
1 China
104.1 423.4 527.6 15.8%
2 Canada
245.6 254.8 500.4 15.0%
3 Mexico
211.8 270.6 482.5 14.5%
4 Japan
57.6 120.0 177.6 5.3%
5 Germany
45.0 104.6 149.6 4.5%
6 Korea, South
38.0 64.5 102.5 3.1%
7 United Kingdom
51.1 49.6 100.6 3.0%
8 France
28.0 43.2 71.2 2.1%
9 India
19.6 42.6 62.1 1.9%
10 Taiwan
23.4 35.9 59.4 1.8%
11 Italy
15.2 41.1 56.4 1.7%
12 Switzerland
20.5 33.1 53.6 1.6%
13 Netherlands
37.0 14.8 51.8 1.6%
14 Brazil
27.7 23.7 51.4 1.5%
15 Ireland
8.8 41.5 50.2 1.5%

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/06/natos_100_billion_defense_budget_gap_109525.html

An aside:  The UK also has a trade deficit with the EU of about 70 BUKP or about another 100 BUSD.

Brexit and Trump are holding a 325 BUSD/year pistol at the head of Europe.  (100 in US defence, 125 in US trade and 100 in UK trade).