President Trump

Let's start discussing the policies that president Trump will have to deal with.

OIL PRICES

It's extremely important for Russia to keep the oil prices high, because Russia's whole economy basically stands or falls with the return they get from their oil export.

Opposed to that, it's in the major interest of the USA to keep the oil prices low enough, because the USA's oil import is twice as substantial as its oil export.

How will this administration implement its AMERICA FIRST strategy when it comes to oil prices and how can this be reconciled with its friendly policy with regards to Russia?
It's in Putin's interest to gain political control over the middle East (for instance keeping Assad in power as his ally) so he can control the oil prices, while it's in America's interest that he has no political control over it. How is Trump going to make sure that the American economy doesn't get harmed by Putin?

Putin is currently winning (especially throughout 2016):



How is Trump going to Make America Win Again?

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

"President Trump's hands are the largest hands to ever exist, period." - Sean Spicer

Small line, but funny to me.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Indians are putting the saffron ( orange like colour of hinduism ) coloured turban of a hindu warrior on Trump's head along with the mustache of a hindu warrior after his ''will root out islamic radicalism'' speech .

KYM deadpooled this.

That's a lot of people.

How come there are no global women's marches against fundamentalist Islam?

Trump has not stoned, beheaded, beaten, tortured, disemboweled, raped, enslaved, sold, subjugated, stripped human rights from, burned, thrown acid on, dismembered, disfigured, strapped bombs onto, mass-kidnapped, genitally mutilated, forced marriage upon, or "honor-killed" any women, little girls or female infants. Yet these are ongoing daily practices committed against women throughout Islamic countries and within Islamic cultures all over the world.

The same people protesting are the same ones who refuse to see or acknowledge true and ongoing abuse (and outright murder) of women and their rights that are taking place throughout the world by a spreading ideology which they support because their PC camp dictates that the fascist, genocidal, intolerant, homophobic, misogynist philosophy & teachings of political Islam is one of their protected causes.

What brainwashed, lemming-like hypocrites.

Whiny winner.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

__________________
"I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."
E. K. Hornbeck

A bit more on how utterly ruinous and counterproductive protectionism is: First, one argument in written form.

And for the more video-inclined, another:

Cause they don't run America???? The most powerful country in the world???? We all know fundamentalist Islam is bad mojo. America is suppose to be different.

Not just that, but people obviously stand a greater chance of making a difference in a) the country they actually live in, particularly when it's b) a democracy. Affecting policy changes in a non-democratic state halfway around the world is a lot harder, and you can probably make a good case, strictly from a pragmatic point of view, that it's a better use of time.

Which isn't to say that a lot of people marching yesterday don't have incompatible views on radical Islam and domestic issues. I'm sure plenty of them do. But there's not an inherent contradiction, and if we always responded to every protest with "X is worse, go protest that," then a lot of still important issues would never be addressed.

So I tend to think that's only a good response when the gulf is huge (IE: protesting one rather than the other shows patently disordered priorities) and there's a similar chance of affecting change for both.

I didn't really expect the silent majority to drop all their responsibilities and all of a sudden set a record crowd in D.C., for two reasons:

1. 2. Who needs to venture into an unfriendly, aggressive and vandal infested territory?

Crowd looks respectable to me in this link:

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2...apixel/?cnnApp

Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, before speaking live on TV outside the White House on Sunday.

Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that the White House had put forth “alternative facts” to ones reported by the news media about the size of Mr. Trump’s inauguration crowd.

She made this assertion a day after Mr. Trump and Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, had accused the news media of reporting falsehoods about the inauguration and Mr. Trump’s relationship with the intelligence agencies.

In leveling this attack, the president and Mr. Spicer made a series of false statements.

1. In a speech at the C.I.A. on Saturday, Mr. Trump said the news media had constructed a feud between him and the intelligence community. “They sort of made it sound like I had a ‘feud’ with the intelligence community,” he said. “It is exactly the opposite, and they understand that, too.”

In fact, Mr. Trump repeatedly criticized the intelligence agencies during his transition to office and has questioned their conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to aid his candidacy. He called their assessment “ridiculous” and suggested that it had been politically motivated.

After the disclosure of a dossier with unsubstantiated claims about him, Mr. Trump alleged that the intelligence agencies had allowed a leak of the material. “Are we living in Nazi Germany?” he asked in a post on Twitter.

2. Mr. Trump said of his inauguration crowd,“It looked honestly like a million and a half people, whatever it was, it was, but it went all the way back to the Washington Monument.”

Aerial photographs clearly show that the crowd did not stretch to the Washington Monument. An analysis by The New York Times, comparing photographs from Friday to ones taken of Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, showed that Mr. Trump’s crowd was significantly smaller and less than the 1.5 million people he claimed.

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

There is no evidence to support this claim. Not only was Mr. Trump’s inauguration crowd far smaller than Mr. Obama’s in 2009, but he also drew fewer television viewers in the United States (30.6 million) than Mr. Obama did in 2009 (38 million) and Ronald Reagan did in 1981 (42 million), Nielsen reported.

5. Mr. Spicer said that Washington’s Metro system had greater ridership on Friday than it did for Mr. Obama’s 2013 inauguration. “We know that 420,000 people used the D.C. Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 that used it for President Obama’s last inaugural,” Mr. Spicer said.

Neither number is correct, according to the transit system, which reported 570,557 entries into the rail system on Friday, compared with 782,000 on Inauguration Day in 2013.

6. Mr. Spicer said that “this was the first time in our nation’s history that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the Mall. That had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past the grass eliminated this visual.”

In fact, similar coverings were used during the 2013 inauguration to protect the grass. The coverings did not hamper analyses of the crowd size.

7. Mr. Spicer said that it was “the first time that fencing and magnetometers went as far back on the Mall, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from being able to access the Mall as quickly as they had in inaugurations past.”

The Secret Service said security measures were largely unchanged this year. There were also few reports of long lines or delays.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...yEL?li=BBnb7Kz

I'm curious to see these numbers, as they get updated for Trump...

Trump’s Numbers Got a Boost Via Online Streaming, But Obama Had More Livestreams on CNN

http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/how-ma...mbers-ratings/

Is Heavy.com a legitimate news source?

This misses the point; people aren't talking about this because the turnout was modest. They're talking about it because he said it would be a record, it wasn't even close, and he had his press secretary brazenly lie about it.

Also, 46% isn't a majority, silent or otherwise.

I wonder how many people streamed Trump. RT alone, was on for hours.



http://www.cinemablend.com/televisio...ils-79617.html

But, it obviously translates into one, using the Electoral College, 306-232, I believe.