President Trump

[Sexy Celebrity]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=47199&stc=1&d=1534909697

PRESIDENT
TRUMP

[Citizen Rules]

Trump's new Terminator!

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=27944&stc=1&d=1480366142

[Guaporense]

isn't it "terminate THE deal"?

[Iroquois]

And here I was thinking it wasn't possible for Pink Flamingos to be any more disgusting.

[The Gunslinger45]

Vote for Divine! Make Filth Great Again!

[Swan]

It's all a big conspiracy orchestrated by John Waters!

[Powdered Water]

And shes also a he. So, maybe it really is Trump

[Iroquois]

If we're talking John Waters movies then I'd be more inclined to compare him to Edie Massey's character in Desperate Living.

[Movie Max]

Trump's new Terminator!



Hey Citizen, I thought of you when Stein announced the recount efforts. What do you think of her initiative?

[Movie Max]

Holy crap, who has time for all this scrutiny? I see a practical guy on the go.:rolleyes:

Donald Trump Uses Scotch Tape to Hold His Tie Together
http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-tie-scotch-tape-photo/

https://i1.wp.com/peopledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/donald-trump1.jpg

[Camo]

? That's from People Magazine which is pretty much specifically about pointless/superficial famous people things like that. You could find plenty of examples of them publishing crappy similar things about Obama, Hilary, whoever.

[matt72582]

Trump is trying to save the taxpayers money :)

[Movie Max]

People Magazine just had the photo I liked. I thought most mainstream media was in on reporting the tie and tape. Hillary and Obama are old news. Stein is desperately scratching away to the bone, just to get her 15 minutes of fame.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=27997&stc=1&d=1480779650

[CiCi]

I don't think Stein is, at least I hope not. If the USA are going to have a major third party, then the likes of Johnson and Stein can't disappear for 4 years until the next election. They need to keep on developing their support and consolidating it. It can't be that difficult if someone as utterly clueless as Johnson still managed to get millions of votes :lol:

[Citizen Rules]

People talk about how Donald Trump loves to eat McDonald's food.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=28002&stc=1&d=1480820549

I just figured out why.

McDonald's. Hillary's eating the seat! I guess she needs some fiber in her diet:eek:

[Iroquois]

People talk about how Donald Trump loves to eat McDonald's food.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=28002&stc=1&d=1480820549

I just figured out why.

McDonald's.

It's hard not to see a lot of Trump parallels in The Founder.

[Movie Max]

It's really not something one should take personally, or be surprised at. All these recent anti-establishment wins truly seem to be more of a global movement, as opposed to isolated incidents that shouldn't have happened. They are happening and they are unexpectedly defying logic in various world territories. At some point, we should probably start expecting them, because I have a feeling these wins will continue.

This is what Italians are actually voting on in Sunday's crucial referendum

If Renzi's "Yes" campaign loses, (IT LOST) he is expected to resign, leading to a new government. A "No" vote will also likely give the populist Five Star Movement a substantial boost, and signal a further victory for a global populist political insurgency that has already helped cause Brexit and the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency.http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-italian-referendum-vote-about-2016-12

Italy referendum: PM Matteo Renzi resigns after clear referendum defeat

Mr Renzi said the reforms he proposed would have cut Italy's bureaucracy and made the country more competitive.

But the referendum was widely seen as a chance to register discontent with the prime minister.

The No vote was supported by populist parties, and the referendum was regarded as a barometer of anti-establishment sentiment in Europe.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38204189

Italy referendum: Matteo Renzi to resign after defeat

It will also be seen, much like Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, as a victory of populist forces over an establishment party, although the reality is more complicated.https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/dec/04/italian-referendum-and-austrian-presidential-election-live

[Camo]

People talk about how Donald Trump loves to eat McDonald's food.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=28002&stc=1&d=1480820549

I just figured out why.

McDonald's.

Is this supposed to be like that ad we all watched the other day? Hilary really wanted that big mac and none of us paid enough attention to realize?

[Citizen Rules]

Ha! that's funny:D

[Movie Max]

I knew Canada wasn't all bad.:D

"While the reactions to the U.S. election are predictably negative, they aren't quite as black as we might have expected,"

When asked "overall, what impact do you believe Donald Trump's presidency will have on you and your family," 41 per cent of Albertans responded "positive," compared with just 20 per cent nationally.

In Alberta, Trump received 47.8 per cent approval.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-poll-trump-presidency-1.3868677

Results for our midwest were not presented.

[ash_is_the_gal]

why is Trump wasting his time tweeting about how crap SNL is? he's about the be the president for crying aloud. he sounds like a 12 year old on xbox live with some of this shet.

[CiCi]

why is Trump wasting his time tweeting about how crap SNL is? he's about the be the president for crying aloud. he sounds like a 12 year old on xbox live with some of this shet.

Lord knows, but this is a man who potentially ruined 40 years of diplomatic relations with China in a single phone call.

I actually find Alec Baldwin hilarious as Trump though, just imagine the tweets if Baldwin is nominated for an Emmy :lol:

[Movie Max]

http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_49/1180034/time-poy-cover-trump-today-161206_cbe454aa529a192dd0e276627cd43f31.today-inline-large.jpg

[Iroquois]

D-S-A! D-S-A!

Nah, doesn't have the same ring to it. Good.

[Movie Max]

Trump chooses pro wrestling magnate Linda McMahon to head SBA

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said on Wednesday he will nominate professional wrestling magnate and former Senate candidate Linda McMahon as his choice to head the Small Business Administration.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-sba-exclusive-idUSKBN13W2QY

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

[Movie Max]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaCuafDaWPI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y59EmYP_474

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=28137&stc=1&d=1482116522

http://elections.wi.gov/node/4768

[Movie Max]

Electoral College meets amid effort to deny Trump presidency

Republican electors say they have been deluged with emails, phone calls and letters urging them not to support Trump. Many of the emails are part of coordinated campaigns.

"The letters are actually quite sad," said Lee Green, a Republican elector from North Carolina. "They are generally freaked out. They honestly believe the propaganda. They believe our nation is being taken over by a dark and malevolent force."

In addition to thousands of emails, Republican elector Charlie Buckels of Louisiana said he received a FedEx package with a 50-page document that the sender said "had absolute proof that the Russians hacked the elections."

"From the tenor of these emails, you would think these people are curled up in a corner in a fetal position with a thumb in their mouth," Buckels said.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/34085453/electoral-college-meets-amid-effort-to-deny-trump-presidency

[Yoda]

Trump's right about the Stein recount thing, at least. Definitely a scam.

[Movie Max]

I like this cartoon...:D

http://c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/donald-trumps-election-win-white-democratic-voters-went-republican-r.jpg

The victory of Donald Trump surprised virtually all political observers. Many since have focused on Trump’s record-high 39 percent margin among whites without a college degree. Few have focused on what this means: Trump — and the Republican party — owe the presidency to millions of whites who have largely voted Democratic for years. The implications of that for the future of the Republican party are immense.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442347/donald-trumps-election-win-white-democratic-voters-went-republican
Social conservatives often think that their policies are the way to reach out to these voters and bring them into the GOP coalition, but that’s a mistake. These voters are not motivated by social issues; they are, as the conservative Canadian political analyst Patrick Muttart says, “morally moderate.” They will go along with candidates of the Left or the Right who hold their party’s consensus views on abortion, gender identity, or marriage so long as they do not make those views their priority. Donald Trump’s lack of a firm grounding in traditional Republican social policy was, for these voters, a plus, as it signaled to them that advancing the Evangelical Christian social agenda would not be high on his agenda.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442347/donald-trumps-election-win-white-democratic-voters-went-republican

[TONGO]

Since some of the Trumpets like to troll the other thread about Trump, you know the one with facts being discussed, I figure Ill give this thread the news clips too.

Enjoy :)

U.S. taxpayers may end up paying for Trump’s border wall with Mexico

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBxX6Lu.img?h=574&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=464&y=235

President-elect Donald Trump may ask Congress for American tax dollars to pay for a border wall with Mexico, breaking a major campaign promise, according to multiple reports late Thursday.

Making Mexico pay for a wall to stop the flow of smuggled drugs and illegal immigrants was a centerpiece of Trump’s presidential campaign.

“Mexico will pay for the wall,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Phoenix on Aug. 31. “Believe me. 100%. They don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for the wall.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/771294347501461504
Critics have assailed the wall as being unrealistic, expensive and impractical.

According to CNN and the Associated Press, Trump’s transition team has spoken with Republican Congressional leaders about the possibility of funding the wall through the appropriations process, using the authority of a law passed in 2006 under the Bush administration to build fencing along the border. Doing so would avoid having to pass a new border-wall bill, which would likely face heavy opposition by Democrats and many Republicans.

“By funding the authorization that’s already happened a decade ago, we could start the process of meeting Mr. Trump’s campaign pledge to secure the border,” Rep. Luke Messer, R-Indiana, told CNN on Thursday.

Placing the controversial funding measure into an existing spending bill could force a budget showdown with Democrats, who could threaten to shut down the government rather than approve the bill. That could be a politically fraught stance for many Democrats, especially those, such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who supported the bill in 2006.

“If tied to the rest of government funding, it’s much harder for the Democrats to stop, and by the way, I think it’s much harder for Democrats to vote against it if what you’re doing is authorizing funding for an existing law,” Messer later told Politico.

However, if the 2006 law does end up paying for a new border barrier, it will more likely be an upgraded fence, not the enormous concrete wall that Trump touted during his campaign. Experts have said a wall that Trump has described, rising 40 feet and spanning almost 2,000 miles of rugged terrain, would cost tens of billions of dollars to build.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/us-taxpayers-may-end-up-paying-for-trump’s-border-wall-with-mexico/ar-BBxX6Lz

[TONGO]

From EcoWatch....

Q. Noam, the unthinkable has happened: In contrast to all forecasts, Donald Trump scored a decisive victory over Hillary Clinton, and the man that Michael Moore described as a "wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full-time sociopath" will be the next president of the U.S. In your view, what were the deciding factors that led American voters to produce the biggest upset in the history of U.S. politics?

A. Noam Chomsky

Before turning to this question, I think it is important to spend a few moments pondering just what happened on Nov. 8, a date that might turn out to be one of the most important in human history, depending on how we react.

No exaggeration.

The most important news of Nov. 8 was barely noted, a fact of some significance in itself.

On Nov. 8, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) delivered a report at the international conference on climate change in Morocco (COP22) which was called in order to carry forward the Paris agreement of COP21. The WMO reported that the past five years were the hottest on record. It reported rising sea levels, soon to increase as a result of the unexpectedly rapid melting of polar ice, most ominously the huge Antarctic glaciers. Already, Arctic sea ice over the past five years is 28 percent below the average of the previous 29 years, not only raising sea levels, but also reducing the cooling effect of polar ice reflection of solar rays, thereby accelerating the grim effects of global warming. The WMO reported further that temperatures are approaching dangerously close to the goal established by COP21, along with other dire reports and forecasts.

https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/797778649139310592

Another event took place on Nov. 8, which also may turn out to be of unusual historical significance for reasons that, once again, were barely noted.

On Nov. 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.

Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.

Is this an exaggeration? Consider what we have just been witnessing.

During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening—with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."

The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible.

Trump has already taken steps to dismantle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by placing in charge of the EPA transition a notorious (and proud) climate change denier, Myron Ebell. Trump's top adviser on energy, billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm, announced his expectations, which were predictable: dismantling regulations, tax cuts for the industry (and the wealthy and corporate sector generally), more fossil fuel production, lifting Obama's temporary block on the Dakota Access Pipeline.

https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/796848719215915008

The market reacted quickly. Shares in energy corporations boomed, including the world's largest coal miner, Peabody Energy, which had filed for bankruptcy, but after Trump's victory, registered a 50 percent gain.

https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/796838694103687168

Follow the link to read the complete article.

http://www.ecowatch.com/noam-chomsky-trump-2093271018.html?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1483369509

[Iroquois]

Man, if those electors quoted at the top of the page are any indication, then...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082

[Movie Max]

Wow, White outclasses Streep...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iYkuwT40Ss

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

yo this dude likes piss

[Yoda]

Eh, maybe. It's pretty clear BuzzFeed acted irresponsibly by posting something they hadn't verified, and which in fact no one seems able to verify right now. And overreaching just provides a ready-made excuse to dodge the issue, allowing him to talk about journalistic protocols instead of facts.

That said, if any Trump supporters are mad about serious accusations without verification, they can show me evidence of how outraged they were when Trump accused Ted Cruz's father of helping to assassinate JFK, or when he floated a dozen other conspiracy theories.

[Camo]

Was wondering why this hadn't been mentioned here yet. Eh.. well nothings been confirmed as Yoda said, i saw something on another site that claimed it was a 4 chan hoax but i was just scanning through didn't look into it. It's all nuts anyway.

[Yoda]

The 4chan stuff seems like nonsense. They claim they leaked it to Rick Wilson (Trump supporters hate him, because he was critical of Trump, naturally). Wilson categorically says otherwise, and basically proved it by saying that if he was the source, he relinquished any claim to anonymity, so BuzzFeed would be free to identify him as such. Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't, but for anyone not engaged in willful reasoning, that should settle it. And if that part isn't true, there isn't much reason to think the rest is.

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

i realize that this is probably not true, but it's still super funny and i will be making piss puns for the foreseeable future.

[Kaplan]

I guess I'm the only one who who's not amused by the whole thing, now that I'm learning a little more about it. And Buzzfeed is trash. Of course they are significantly less trashy than, say, The National Enquirer, and Trump thinks they should win the Pulitzer Prize. :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGeF4DiWBY

[donniedarko]

After Barack Hussein Obama's little Israel stunt I'm 100% on board with the Trump victory

**** what the Democratic party has become. The Bernies and Warren's ruined what was once a decent party. Now i would take 2000 Nader over who's coming out of this sh*t house

[Kaplan]

After Barack Hussein Obama's little Israel stunt I'm 100% on board with the Trump victory

**** what the Democratic party has become. The Bernies and Warren's ruined what was once a decent party. Now i would take 2000 Nader over who's coming out of this sh*t house

What stunt was that? The 10 year/38 billion dollar aid package to Israel Obama signed last year? Or are you referring to his standing by and letting the international community express their opinion on the growing illegal settlements? Israel needs us more than we need them, but you'd never know it to listen to that greedy, corrupt failure of a prime minister, who is as likely to be indicted by the end of the year as he is to remain in power.

I do agree that I don't want to see the democratic party become overall more progressive. That I don't want to see.

[donniedarko]

Israel needs us more than we need them? Eh, I don't think you've really read up on the full deals with the iron dome funding because US business makes a good amount of money on that. Bibi having a 50% chance of being indicted? Don't know where you got that but I won't be looking through your ass to find it. A much stronger leader than Obama could ever be.

[donniedarko]

Maybe move on from the propaganda the international community and Kerry feed you about the settlements
https://youtu.be/o-QvvXpVmGs

[donniedarko]

Traders give BibI a 72% chance to last to the years end. If you're so confident on your claim go lose some money. I'll probably be putting a bit on yes

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/49/Mideast_Africa

[donniedarko]

Democrats claiming they're worried about Sessions nit picking which laws he wants to follow, yet stand with illegal immigrants and against deportation :shrug:

[Kaplan]

Israel needs us more than we need them? Eh, I don't think you've really read up on the full deals with the iron dome funding because US business makes a good amount of money on that.

Let me get this straight: In 2014 Obama signs a deal for the U.S. to give Israel $225 million to help with their air defense and yet in your version of reality this is a case of the U.S. needing Israel more than they need us...? And mind you that was on top of the $3 billion we already were giving them every year, a total that is now $3.8 after Obama signed the last aid package. You do realize we give more aid to Israel than any other country in the world? Reality looks like a Daliesque pretzel the way you twist it.


Bibi having a 50% chance of being indicted? Don't know where you got that but I won't be looking through your ass to find it. A much stronger leader than Obama could ever be.The allegations of corruption against Netanyahu are pretty substantial and he is currently under investigation. I assume you've heard this? Regardless of how it turns out, he is still greedy, corrupt, and a failure. And the right wing will call everyone a stronger leader than Obama, so that's just empty rhetoric.

[matt72582]

Israel is an apartheid state... REAL liberals fight against injustice ANYWHERE, not just when it's trendy.

[donniedarko]

I'll get back to your grievances when I'm on a computer, Kaplan

Matt, tell me exactly how Israel is an apartheid state please?

[Friendly Mushroom!]

The world is weird. For example - Mario got Sonic Adventure 3 before Sonic. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5kcdRBHM7kM)

[Friendly Mushroom!]

5 DAYS.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=28485&stc=1&d=1484468146

Obvious Joke = Trump is force choking Ben Caron.

It also looks like Trump has elf ears for some reason.

[TONGO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Gf0mGJfP8

[Movie Max]

Trump may be a 'clown,' but he was right about the media: Rolling Stone journalist

"The media and politicians had spent so much time with each other that they lost touch with regular people, and Trump capitalized on that. He made us in the media villains, representative of this out of touch, ivory tower political culture," he said.

"I think there's some fairness to it, as much as I dislike Donald Trump, he hit a note, several notes, in this campaign that were true, and that was one of them."http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-matt-taibbi-insane-clown-president-the-national-wendy-mesley-1.3936285

[Iroquois]

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/JsOPHyuAuT0/hqdefault.jpg

[Movie Max]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYh-LwbUwoQ

[Movie Max]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWn1Oj2V7Xw

[Captain Steel]

HAPPY INAUGURATION EVE!
...to Sexy and everybody!

So, who's boycotting the festivities and who wishes they had one of the tickets to the ball that had been reserved for one of the people who refuse to attend on the principle that they now no longer acknowledge the United State's election system?

I know this has been repeated, but it does bear repeating... it's just amazing that so many of the people who were outraged at Trump's suggestion that he might not honor the vote (and the ultimate decision of the Electoral College) and who called him un-American and disrespectful to the Constitution are the same people now saying they will not acknowledge him as President; that he was illegally elected or that the election system (which they fully supported right up until the final votes were cast) is broken, flawed, unjust or needs to be thrown out. It's just amazing how anyone can be so openly hypocritical to tout a system as the best around, until their candidate loses - then state that the same system they supported is "broken"!

But once again, this is the double standard of the Left and their philosophy of Political Correctness, which dictates "what's good for the goose is good for the gander... as long as it's not OUR gander! OUR gander needs a whole different set of special rules, standards and entitlements - while we insist that everyone else who we don't deem as special or entitled or 'one of us' be forced to comply with rules and standards based on a level playing field of equity and which are applied & enforced equally!"

[Iroquois]

Bit rich coming from the side that picked the most aggressively entitled individual in the land.

[Iroquois]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/499/742/36c.jpg

[Movie Max]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN9QhZbh7q4

[ashdoc]

So what are the opinions on trump's speech by the experts here?

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/822493980306722816
https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/822491618049720321
Granted, that second one will only seem relevant to someone who thinks ideas, ya' know, matter. To people who've decided America lives or dies based on some undefinable attitude (rather than an idea, as its Founders clearly believed), it probably won't make a lot of sense.

The first one, however, is a contradiction whether you align with the Founders or not.

[Topsy]

someone should have held the applause sign up for them so they knew when to do it.
some awkward moments where he had to stand there and wait for it lol
his speech was nothing surprising,sadly.

[mark f]

An extremist, one-sided perspective on an America that only exists in the minds of all the villains in Frank Capra movies. I don't see Trump ever getting reformed like they did. The comeuppance is still a possibility. Trump didn't look too happy at some of the prayers offered after his swearing in since they offered things which seem anathema to his policies.

[jiraffejustin]

There's no going back now. Let's trooper through these four years so we can re-elect him and trooper through four more years.

[seanc]

An extremist, one-sided perspective on an America that only exists in the minds of all the villains in Frank Capra movies. I don't see Trump ever getting reformed like they did. The comeuppance is still a possibility. Trump didn't look too happy at some of the prayers offered after his swearing in since they offered things which seem anathema to his policies.

Yeah, I think what alluding to is how dire he is about the state of the country. I agree, I can't tolerate it when he talks about us like we are a third world country. Nothing a big wall and super low corporate tax rate won't fix though. :sick:

[TONGO]

Anti-Trump protests tear gassed today in Washington

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crR6Rys4usA

[Movie Max]

Over the last 8 years, I've noticed that a free market and bailouts managed to go hand in hand. Isn't that a huge and expensive example of how a free market and protectionism can both coexist?

[Yoda]

Bailouts aren't protectionism. Protectionism is restricting trade through tariffs and regulations.

[Captain Steel]

Protests - it's amazing that the Left / PC camp, which claims to abhor violence, can't ever seem to conduct protests without them turning violent (over 90 anti-Trump protesters arrested in NYC so far for violence, assaults and vandalism).

This is definitely not the kind of protest that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. talked about (but then he was a Christian & civil rights activist, not a politically correct Leftist).

[Movie Max]

Ok, my mistake.

“It’s time to drop the fantasy that a purely free market exists in the world of global trade,” Mr Hochberg told an American audience shortly after returning from Prague. “In the real world our private enterprises are pitted against an array of competitors that are often government-owned, government-protected, government-subsidised, government-sponsored or all of the above.”

Global Trade Alert (GTA), a monitoring service operated by the London-based Centre for Economic Policy Research, defines protectionism more broadly as anything that hurts another country’s commercial interests. It thus includes government bailouts of domestic companies, wage subsidies, export and VAT rebates, export credits and financing from state-owned banks.
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21587381-protectionism-can-take-many-forms-not-all-them-obvious-hidden-persuaders

[Yoda]

I'm not sure what your point is: it says right there in the quote that they're defining protectionism as "anything that hurts another country’s commercial interests." And the reason they have to state that is because it's outside of the normal definition.

[Captain Steel]

This is just funny - Bill caught by Hillary while checking out Ivanka this morning. (Can't say as I blame him - Ivanka looked stunning! Gotta be the hottest "first daughter" ever!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKTNfWGblHk

[Friendly Mushroom!]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/499/742/36c.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HuEz8N1gsnk/maxresdefault.jpg

S***post

[Movie Max]

Bill caught by Hillary while checking out Ivanka this morning.

"I did not imagine sexual relations WITH THAT WOMAN" - Bill Clinton

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

too bad trump can't say that

[Camo]

So... Trump did imagine sexual relations with that woman?

[Citizen Rules]

I for one, am going to start learning Russian so that when Trump hands the USA over to Russia, I will still be able to order a vanilla latte, with a shot of Smirnoff....

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2007/09/06/business/worldbusiness/06bux600_.jpg

[Swan]

I for one, am going to start learning Russian so that when Trump hands the USA over to Russia, I will still be able to order a vanilla latte....
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2007/09/06/business/worldbusiness/06bux600_.jpg

Crapbake Kope?

[Citizen Rules]

Ha, it could be!

[Camo]

Those Russians taking over America for some reason. :shrug: This makes sense but everything else doesn't :shrug:

[Iroquois]

Protests - it's amazing that the Left / PC camp, which claims to abhor violence, can't ever seem to conduct protests without them turning violent (over 90 anti-Trump protesters arrested in NYC so far for violence, assaults and vandalism).

This is definitely not the kind of protest that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. talked about (but then he was a Christian & civil rights activist, not a politically correct Leftist).

http://68.media.tumblr.com/d8045b640a20640978b36aef91116741/tumblr_mzoa5w0SXv1rgam01o1_r1_400.gif

[TONGO]

Scarlett Johansson took the podium on Saturday during the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. to advocate for Planned Parenthood and address Donald Trump himself.

“President Trump, I did not vote for you. That said, I respect that you are our President-elect and I want to be able to support you,” she said. “First, I ask that you support me, support my sister, support my mother, support my best friend and all of our girlfriends, support the men and women here today that are anxiously awaiting to see how your next moves may drastically affect their lives.”

“Support my daughter,” she continued, “who may actually — as a result of the appointments you have made — grow up in a country that is moving backwards, not forwards, and who potentially may not have the right to make choices for her body and her future that your daughter, Ivanka, has been privileged to have.”

Watch a clip below, via NBC News.

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/822869586047475712

The Avengers and Ghost in the Shell action star then shared how Planned Parenthood helped her and saved the lives of her friends through cancer screenings and treatments.

http://ew.com/news/2017/01/21/womens-march-scarlett-johansson-speech/

[matt72582]

I wonder if the same people would protest if Hillary Clinton was inaugurated.

[seanc]

People talking about their children as if they are a choice to dispose of make me want to puke.

[Topsy]

^^ are you talking about abortion?

also them using pictures from Obamas inauguration as the twitter header because noone came to his :lol: :lol:

[seanc]

^^ are you talking about abortion?

also them using pictures from Obamas inauguration as the twitter header because noone came to his :lol: :lol:

No, I'm talking about condoms.

[Topsy]

buy the old leather ones that you can wash and you wont have to dispose of them :up:

[cricket]

I tried using a plastic bag once. I was friggin hammered.

[Topsy]

such a gent! ;)

[cricket]

such a gent! ;)

I thought so!

[Topsy]

all is better than nothing..or something :lol:

[Cobpyth]

I'm not really connecting with the purpose of today's protest. Against which specific potential policy change are they protesting with their pink pussy hats?

I understand protests that are against specific new policies, but I have a hard time seeing the point of this kind of protests. Some of these women actually seem to think that they're going to be discriminated in the future like black people were in the past. There's absolutely nothing that points in that direction, though. I don't get it.

Protest against actual dangerous policy proposals, because that's what ultimately really counts. This chaotic movement that mainly seems to be focused at Trump's persona will not lead to anything meaningful or constructive, in my opinion.

Use specific arguments to combat Trump, not vague symbolism.

[Friendly Mushroom!]

https://youtu.be/9dF4ffLXbUE

[TONGO]

Use specific arguments to combat Trump, not vague symbolism.

You'd think. Problem is people dont respond anymore to specific arguments, policies, or the truth being revealed. If it were he wouldnt have gotten elected. Its a different time now, and the educated within the USA need to wake up to that fact.

What would we respond to now? Someone more legit, I hate to say this, and more "cool" too.

If the Democrats come at him in 2020 with the facts, policies, and arguments....with a candidate thats boring & sound, Trump will win again. :(

[Cobpyth]

You'd think. Problem is people dont respond anymore to specific arguments, policies, or the truth being revealed. If it were he wouldnt have gotten elected. Its a different time now, and the educated within the USA need to wake up to that fact.

Wrong. That's the worst lesson to take away from this election!

Hillary simply did a horrible job of arguing for her policies and she wasn't a believable person in the first place anyway. She didn't lose because she's not able to put up a show like Trump can. She lost because she was a terrible communicator for her ideas. She constantly played the "feelings" card with her "first woman president"-slogans and her main focus on character attacks, instead of rationally and clearly explaining why her policies were better for America.

One of the main reasons why Trump won was because he was able to bring all his opponents to his level and we all saw that he was better at playing that game.

People will be craving for a serious policy-minded person after four years of Trump (if he messes it up). If Trump's opponents keep acting in the way they are doing now, though, I am pretty sure that they won't benefit from it. Even I am instinctively getting appalled by them at times.

Don't engage in a war of feelings. Engage in a war of rational arguments. Don't lower the standard, but elevate it!

[TONGO]

Wrong. That's the worst lesson to take away from this election!

Hillary simply did a horrible job of arguing for her policies and she wasn't a believable person in the first place anyway. She didn't lose because she's not able to put up a show like Trump can. She lost because she was a terrible communicator for her ideas. She constantly played the "feelings" card with her "first woman president"-slogans and her main focus on character attacks, instead of rationally and clearly explaining why her policies were better for America.

One of the main reasons why Trump won was because he was able to bring all his opponents to his level and we all saw that he was better at playing that game.

People will be craving for a serious policy-minded person after four years of Trump (if he messes it up). If Trump's opponents keep acting in the way they are doing now, though, I am pretty sure that they won't benefit from it. Even I am instinctively getting appalled by them at times.

Don't engage in a war of feelings. Engage in a war of rational arguments. Don't lower the standard, but elevate it!


Your thinking is completely right. I agree with it, but am disillusioned that most Americans are even capable of being intelligently objective now. Yeah I think Bernie would have beaten Trump with the same election strategy you mapped out, but Hillary just was not approachable or familiar to voters, like Trump even or Bernie.

[mark f]

If somebody elevates "it", Trump calls them a liar in a tweet. And nobody lies more and "better" than Trump and his surrogates. To paraphrase one of those surrogates, fear of Trump is rational.

[TONGO]

A most dreadful inaugural address: George Will

WASHINGTON -- Twenty minutes into his presidency, Donald Trump, who is always claiming to have made, or to be about to make, astonishing history, had done so. Living down to expectations, he had delivered the most dreadful inaugural address in history.

Kellyanne Conway, Trump's White House counselor, had promised that the speech would be "elegant." This is not the adjective that came to mind as he described "American carnage." That was a phrase the likes of which has never hitherto been spoken at an inauguration.

Oblivious to the moment and the setting, the always remarkable Trump proved that something dystopian can be strangely exhilarating: In what should have been a civic liturgy serving national unity and confidence, he vindicated his severest critics by serving up re-heated campaign rhetoric about "rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape" and an education system producing students "deprived of all knowledge." Yes, all.

In what should have been a civic liturgy serving national unity and confidence, he vindicated his severest critics by serving up re-heated campaign rhetoric.

But cheer up, because the carnage will vanish if we "follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American." "Simple" is the right word.

Because in 1981 the inauguration ceremony for a cheerful man from the American West was moved from the Capitol's East Portico to its West Front, Trump stood facing west, down the Mall with its stately monuments celebrating some of those who made America great -- Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln. Looking out toward where the fields of the republic roll on, Trump, a Gatsby-for-our-time, said: "What truly matters is not which party controls our government but whether our government is controlled by the people." Well.

"A dependence on the people," James Madison wrote, "is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." He meant the checks and balances of our constitutional architecture. They are necessary because, as Madison anticipated and as the nation was reminded on Friday, "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/01/a_most_dreadful_inaugural_addr.html

[Cobpyth]

If somebody elevates "it", Trump calls them a liar in a tweet. And nobody lies more and "better" than Trump and his surrogates. To paraphrase one of those surrogates, fear of Trump is rational.

Most of the people he responded heavily to didn't challenge him on policies.

Meryl Streep
Megyn Kelly
Pope Francis
Mitt Romney
Hillary Clinton
Glenn Beck
Almost every other high-profile person he attacked on Twitter...

They all mainly attacked his persona, instead of strongly and rationally explaining why (some of) Trump's ideas are not in the best interest of America. They attacked the man instead of the policies.

Trump is the president of the United States now. Not a single character attack will change that. Why not simply combat the bad policies he's implementing from this moment on instead of insisting on talking about his persona? He won't be able to use personal attacks as an answer to widely accepted and logically explained arguments against his policies. People will see through that, including a large part of the people who voted for him in this election!
I'm strongly convinced that this is the rhetoric that should be used.

[Kaplan]

George Will is correct that it was a dreadful inauguration speech, but as a side note that was a dreadfully written article. Is that how George Will always writes, like he's fighting off the effects of anesthesia?

[Cobpyth]

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):

https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16114622_10154932887354346_6713208495301835569_n.jpg?oh=0fef84e1be2ea514cf266e8db451e911&oe=591715D1

How is Trump going to Make America Win Again?

[matt72582]

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

[TheUsualSuspect]

https://media0ch-a.akamaihd.net/55/49/b23e54008f2e0be720b56dd42f411626.jpg

Small line, but funny to me.

[ashdoc]

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 .

https://scontent.fdel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16114858_10212186731646544_3100861919719893052_n.jpg?oh=e89343134984317e5ebd5e3a51fe1c9a&oe=5912D970

[Captain Steel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQAMemu6fEg

[Friendly Mushroom!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQAMemu6fEg

KYM deadpooled this. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/butthurt-millennial)

[TheUsualSuspect]

That's a lot of people. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/21/world/womens-march-pictures.html?_r=0)

[Captain Steel]

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.

[mark f]

Whiny winner.

[Movie Max]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juTeHsKPWhY

[Yoda]

A bit more on how utterly ruinous and counterproductive protectionism is: First, one argument in written form (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2017/01/18/international-trade-thuggery-n2272206).

And for the more video-inclined, another:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ui5ruDbpyy0

[TheUsualSuspect]

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

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.

[Yoda]

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.

[Movie Max]

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. The nation's capital has awarded its three electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since it gained the right to vote for president in 1961.2. 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/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/?cnnApp

[TONGO]

White House Pushes ‘Alternative Facts.’ Here Are the Real Ones.

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAm7DJE.img?h=680&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=506&y=461
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/politics/white-house-pushes-‘alternative-facts’-here-are-the-real-ones/ar-AAm7yEL?li=BBnb7Kz

[Movie Max]

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

These ratings don’t account for online streaming, which could give Trump’s numbers a big boost. CNN had 16.9 million live streams, for example. Other livestreams like YouTube and Twitter could also add to the viewership count.

Because livestream viewing has increased significantly since Obama’s inauguration, it’s possible that these numbers could give Trump’s total a big boost if compared to how many streamed Obama’s inauguration. Because overall livestream estimates aren’t available, it may not be possible to know this completely accurately. It’s also hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison, since livestream viewing in general is more popular now than it was in 2009.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/how-many-people-watched-trump-inauguration-vs-obama-comparisons-tv-streaming-online-viewing-web-traffic-numbers-ratings/

[TONGO]

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-many-people-watched-trump-inauguration-vs-obama-comparisons-tv-streaming-online-viewing-web-traffic-numbers-ratings/

Is Heavy.com a legitimate news source?

[Yoda]

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/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/?cnnApp
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.

[Movie Max]

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

http://scienceman.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/cable_users_us.jpg

The rate of people dropping cable has been solidly steady in recent years, as the 88% of households in 2010 with subscriptions to companies like Comcast (http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Comcast-Being-Comcast-Apparently-Blocking-Sling-TV-Ads-75227.html) and Time Warner Cable has dropped down to 80% in 2015. So almost 2% of subscribers are dropping cable per year, on average. Yikes.
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Cable-Losing-Ton-Subscribers-Get-Details-79617.html

[Movie Max]

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

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

[Movie Max]

Is Heavy.com a legitimate news source?

Technology advancements are more of a common sense thing. I'd like to see the results come in, so we can compare overall viewership.:idea:

[Yoda]

But, it obviously translates into one, using the Electoral College, 306-232, I believe.:D
Sure. What it doesn't translate to is justification for the phrase "silent majority."

Anyway, like I said, the issue isn't the crowd size. It's the silly boast and the outrageous lie.

[TONGO]

Technology advancements are more of a common sense thing. I'd like to see the results come in, so we can compare overall viewership.:idea:

....from a reputable source. Heavy dot com isnt. :)

[Movie Max]

The slightly smaller voting population (for Trump) has a larger number of silent and well-behaved individuals than the slightly larger voting population (for Hillary), hence, they are still the silent majority.:yup:

[Yoda]

That explains the "silent" part. Doesn't explain the "majority" part, though.

[Movie Max]

....from a reputable source. Heavy dot com isnt. :)

Sometimes, you really have to give the mainstream media a chance to catch up and verify. I don't think that in this case, Heavy is lying or bending the truth.

How does this link suit you?

Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years

Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.

And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams, tying with its Election Day coverage for the site’s top event (live stream tallies are typically not apples-to-apples with Nielsen’s strict methodology of counting average viewers, but are still additive). Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well.

In terms of linear coverage, Fox News topped all networks, averaging 8.8 million viewers for the day and peaking with 11 million viewers from noon to 1 p.m. This was the highest-rated inauguration coverage in the network’s history. While on broadcast, NBC was top ranked with 5.8 million viewers for the day.http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/

[Movie Max]

That explains the "silent" part. Doesn't explain the "majority" part, though.

Wrong! One group has a larger silent majority than the other group.:D

[Cobpyth]

Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16143310_10154936138619346_2489755925222337714_n.jpg?oh=bed11491bd51fc9a4c3f9f3e16422285&oe=591EA52B

[Movie Max]

I do.

[Cobpyth]

I do.

Then your priorities are not in the right place. Do something about it.

[Yoda]

Wrong! One group has a larger silent majority than the other group.:D
"Majority" means most of a group, not more people of a type across different groups. Hence, "silent majority" is wrong. "More silent people" could be true, but it's pretty clear the real idea was not to describe people, but to make Trump supporters sound more numerous than they are.

[Movie Max]

The majority of voters in each group is silent and well-behaved. Between those two majorities, I still think Trump's is larger.:D

[Movie Max]

Then your priorities are not in the right place. Do something about it.

Sunday evening. Entertainment news. Entertainment forum (with Misc. and TV threads). I'd say I have my priorities just where I like them. Just out of curiosity, what time is it where you are?

[Yoda]

The majority of voters in each group is silent and well-behaved. Between those two majorities, I still think Trump's is larger.:D
There ya' go. That would've been the way to say it.

I dunno if it's true, mind you, but at least it's not demonstrably false. The White House's claims about turnout, on the other hand...

[Movie Max]

There ya' go. That would've been the way to say it.

I'm glad we were able to sort those fine details out for you. I'll sleep a lot better, now.:p

[Movie Max]

The White House's claims about turnout, on the other hand...

I'm sure the turn out was a lot smaller. The video in this article, not the photo comparison, does not look too bad, considering his popularity problems.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/

[Yoda]

I'm glad we were able to sort those fine details out for you. I'll sleep a lot better, now.:p
The only "details" we got into were when you decided to pass the phrase through a semantic meat grinder to try to avoid a simple mea culpa, dude.

[Movie Max]

I do like meat grinders.

[Yoda]

I'm on a diet, so I immediately regret my choice of analogy.

[Movie Max]

I'm on a diet, so I immediately regret my choice of analogy.

:laugh:

Will this do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG7Bs_BCC5w

[Captain Steel]

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.

You make some good points, Yoda and I agree with you about arguments of "equivalence."

In my rants on fundamentalist Islam I often make the same counterpoints you did when rebuttals include, "Well look what Christians did in whatever place a thousand years ago" or "Well, look what the Jewish scriptures say about smiting this one and that one." I'll usually give reasons why those things are not comparable to current situations and state that they are issues irrelevant to assessments of modern political Islam & terrorism.

But in the post above mine, TheUsualSuspect had posted a link to "Pictures From Women’s Marches on Every Continent." So I was responding not just to an isolated American protest, but to a global one.

You yourself said, "people obviously stand a greater chance of making a difference in a) the country they actually live in, " But we're looking at global protests in response to the perceived misogyny of one individual.

Now - focusing on the concept of global protests - people are basically protesting the words of one man and the fact that he got elected despite them. On a global level, I don't know of any worldwide protests ever occurring that condemned or decried massacres of innocent people, the slaughter of women and children or the ideology that sanctions & encourages such attacks - not even after 9/11.

I guess my point is, it's staggering that so many people all over the world (a world currently subject to ongoing massacres of innocent people) can come together as we saw on Saturday to protest an individual due to repugnant words caught on a microphone in a stupid moment when they were showing off and didn't know they were being recorded, but no one can come together on such a global level to protest or even mention an ideology that is literally killing women, gang raping little girls, selling them into slavery, forcing them into marriages with insane sadistic men who regard females as livestock and are taught that having sex with children is an example set by a holy man, and mass murdering innocent people all over the world.

Over and over - we see such a level of outrage at things that are relatively inconsequential, while there is hushed silence and even tacit support for an ideology that is committing an ongoing holocaust on a global scale.

[TONGO]

Sometimes, you really have to give the mainstream media a chance to catch up and verify. I don't think that in this case, Heavy is lying or bending the truth.

How does this link suit you?

Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years

http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/

Entertainment Weekly?! :lol: No. Oh my gosh just from being a movie buff you should know better regarding the magazine "rags". Know what the difference is between People, Entertainment Weekly, and the National Enquirer? Not a whole damn lot. :nope: Movie Max the internet has no rules, and theres a webpage out there for every desire. Take a source that you know is reputable even though they might not always agree with your feelings, and youll gain more ground. Your salty enough, but "Fake News" is becoming more and more a thing now. Hm, I wonder if EW and Heavy included the protestors in that figure? :facepalm: Do Time, or Newsweek give that same figure?

[Movie Max]

First meeting, these two may find that they have a lot more in common than they previously thought.;)

http://perezhilton.com/2016-05-19-justin-trudeau-canada-prime-minister-fight-elbow-video

http://perezhilton.com/2016-10-07-twitter-reacts-to-donald-trump-and-billy-bush-comments-about-women

These things blow over so much faster when you're "hot".:D

[Movie Max]

:facepalm: Do Time, or Newsweek give that same figure?

I thought EW was published by Time.

[Citizen Rules]

If Trump keeps getting soooo upset at every little thing, the man is going to blow a fuse! before he even gets started in his presidency.
What a mess that guy is. Any other president would have either:

A, Not commented on the inauguration crowds.
or
B, Said something like, "He was pleased to have shared the moment of his inauguration with the people of America."

Damn! I sound more presidential than Trump. Citizen Rules for replacement president:p

[TONGO]

I thought EW was published by Time.

Oh, so Times figures are the same then?

[Movie Max]

I guess my point is, it's staggering that so many people all over the world (a world currently subject to ongoing massacres of innocent people) can come together as we saw on Saturday to protest an individual due to repugnant words caught on a microphone in a stupid moment when they were showing off and didn't know they were being recorded, but no one can come together on such a global level to protest or even mention an ideology that is literally killing women, gang raping little girls, selling them into slavery, forcing them into marriages with insane sadistic men who regard females as livestock and are taught that having sex with children is an example set by a holy man, and mass murdering innocent people all over the world.

Register Trumpism as a religion and watch the tolerance flood in.:rolleyes:

Pastafarian can wear strainer on head in license photo
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/11/16/church-flying-spaghetti-monster-massachusetts-religion/75862946/

[Movie Max]

Oh, so Times figures are the same then?

TONGO, they don't factor in streaming. That's why I'm curious for the numbers to come out...

Donald Trump’s Inauguration Brings in Over 30 Million Viewers
Ratings figures top former President Barack Obama’s second inauguration, but fall behind 2009

Nielsen’s figures don't factor in live-streaming across the web, an increasingly popular way for viewers to watch coverage of big events. Live feeds from media companies such as the New York Times, CNN, BBC News and The Wall Street Journal aired on Facebook Live, and PBS streamed coverage on Twitter, for example.http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-inauguration-brings-in-over-30-million-viewers-1485039516

Trump's inauguration—the swearing in, parade and various balls—garnered 30.6 million viewers across the 12 networks that aired the ceremonies between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The largest share of these viewers (8.8 million) watched Fox News, and the majority (19.2 million) were over the age of 55. Streaming is not included in any of these figures.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2017/01/21/sorry-sean-spicer-donald-trumps-inauguration-garners-7-million-fewer-viewers-than-obamas/#11a01e8e4c8c

[Captain Steel]

On a lighter note: who was Tiffany paired up with for the Inaugural dance?

P.S. Why so many balls? (celebratory dances, that is.) Just seemed like overkill. Why not just one big ball?

[Iroquois]

But in the post above mine, TheUsualSuspect had posted a link to "Pictures From Women’s Marches on Every Continent." So I was responding not just to an isolated American protest, but to a global one.

You yourself said, "people obviously stand a greater chance of making a difference in a) the country they actually live in, " But we're looking at global protests in response to the perceived misogyny of one individual.

Now - focusing on the concept of global protests - people are basically protesting the words of one man and the fact that he got elected despite them. On a global level, I don't know of any worldwide protests ever occurring that condemned or decried massacres of innocent people, the slaughter of women and children or the ideology that sanctions & encourages such attacks - not even after 9/11.

It was my understanding that there were ongoing military occupations and drone strikes being targeted against the nations that were deemed responsible - since the state is already enacting these actions against the fundamentalists, there's not really that much need for the people to protest the fundamentalists themselves. It's not like the government's response is an ideal one either as it still results in collateral damage to innocent people anyway.

I guess my point is, it's staggering that so many people all over the world (a world currently subject to ongoing massacres of innocent people) can come together as we saw on Saturday to protest an individual due to repugnant words caught on a microphone in a stupid moment when they were showing off and didn't know they were being recorded, but no one can come together on such a global level to protest or even mention an ideology that is literally killing women, gang raping little girls, selling them into slavery, forcing them into marriages with insane sadistic men who regard females as livestock and are taught that having sex with children is an example set by a holy man, and mass murdering innocent people all over the world.

If you seriously think that that's literally the one and only reason that millions of people from all over the globe turned out to protest the man, then you haven't been paying attention. It may just be the most obvious instance of the ways in which Trump comes across as a sexist pig, but it's more than just a social faux pas. It's indicative of the sort of regressive attitudes that Trump not only holds personally but is willing and able to embolden in citizens and colleagues alike, allowing them the power to change policy and social mores in ways that genuinely cause unnecessary problems for women (with an recent example being the plan to defund Planned Parenthood). Yoda is right in that opposing Trump and his associates for their misogynistic attitudes and actions isn't necessarily at odds with disliking Islamic State for the same reasons, but there is a vast difference between protesting a terrorist cult on the other side of the world and protesting a thoroughly unqualified leader whose political decisions can prove just as dangerous to the American populace as any terrorist attack (if not more so). Also, given America's status as a superpower, the president's decisions will also have reverberations on an international scale, so now you know why people around the world would be willing to voice their concerns over his capabilities.

Over and over - we see such a level of outrage at things that are relatively inconsequential, while there is hushed silence and even tacit support for an ideology that is committing an ongoing holocaust on a global scale.

The irony is staggering.

[Captain Steel]

Yoda is right in that opposing Trump and his associates for their misogynistic attitudes and actions isn't necessarily at odds with disliking Islamic State for the same reasons, but there is a vast difference between protesting a terrorist cult on the other side of the world and protesting a thoroughly unqualified leader whose political decisions can prove just as dangerous to the American populace as any terrorist attack (if not more so). Also, given America's status as a superpower, the president's decisions will also have reverberations on an international scale, so now you know why people around the world would be willing to voice their concerns over his capabilities.



The irony is staggering.

It's not just a terrorist cult on the other side of the world, but a spreading ideology that has and is establishing footholds in virtually every nation on Earth, implementing its own misogynist codes to supercede secular laws, and which is growing geometrically and recruiting untold numbers from the wider Islamic community to its most extreme factions.

If you don't realize that, then you haven't been paying attention. ;)

The President's decisions do indeed have reverberations - Trump hasn't even been in office a single business day yet to make any official decisions.

[Movie Max]

Victory in live video streaming: Trump inauguration drew record online audiences
Mr. Trump’s inauguration is a record-breaker for live online video streaming to phones, computers and digital devices — significant in an age of constantly evolving hybrid media and consumer behaviors.

Akamai Technologies — which provides delivery of video content to major news organizations, corporations, retailers and organizations around the world — has this to report: “Video streaming coverage of the 2017 Presidential Inauguration is the largest single live news event that the company has delivered,” calling the event “a new benchmark for live video traffic” which bested such events as the Rio Olympics and the 2016 Euro soccer tournament.

Their measurements are precise. The coverage reached a peak of 8.7 terabytes per second at 12:04 p.m. ET during the opening of the president’s speech, exceeding the previous record of 7.5 terabytes — Tbps — set during Election Day coverage in November. And what the heck is a terabyte? The term refers to a data transmission rate equivalent to 1,000 gigabytes — or 1,000,000,000,000 bytes — per second. In terms of an audience, that measurement translates into 4.6 million people watching the streaming coverage — about what ABC and CBS garnered during the same time period.

Among many others, Akamai provides video streaming to NBC, MTV, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the U.S. State Dept. and six federal agencies, Reuters and The New York Post.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/22/donald-trump-inauguration-drew-record-online-audie/

[Movie Max]

Still waiting for more confirmation, but, sure looks interesting...

Trump Inauguration May Have Been Most-Watched of All-Time
When counting live streaming video

http://img.theepochtimes.com/n3/eet-content/uploads/2017/01/20/GettyImages-632193104-676x450.jpg

While President Donald Trump’s inauguration TV viewership was lower than former President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, it’s a possibility that the ceremony and speech were seen by more viewers than any president in history due to live streaming.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2213464-trump-inauguration-may-have-been-most-watched-of-all-time/

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

Still waiting for more confirmation, but, sure looks interesting...

Trump Inauguration May Have Been Most-Watched of All-Time
When counting live streaming video

http://img.theepochtimes.com/n3/eet-content/uploads/2017/01/20/GettyImages-632193104-676x450.jpg



http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2213464-trump-inauguration-may-have-been-most-watched-of-all-time/

(extremely reverend lovejoy voice) aww, that's super

[Yoda]

It'd be kind of shocking if it wasn't, given that a) online streaming is way more common and b) even his harshest critics don't deny his ability to draw attention to himself.

[Swan]

Honestly I bet a lot of people watched just to see him fumble or something. I'm being completely serious here.

[Movie Max]

Problem is, even if he is only half-right against the big bad media, he wins.

[Yoda]

I think he wins insofar as he can convince people to think in those terms, rather than simply asking themselves what's true.

[Movie Max]

I guess this puts any twitter streaming in the plus column for Trump ...???

Twitter Streaming Of Inauguration Down From Comparable Events, Russian Viewing Doubled

Overall, Twitter's live stream of the inauguration had 23% fewer viewers than its Election Day live stream, according to the analysis, which also reveals the audience composition skewed toward male viewers and Millennials.

The analysis, conducted by Jumpshot, could not compare Trump’s inauguration to previous presidential inaugurations, because live streaming via Twitter was not available then.

Asked how the 2017 inauguration might have performed relative to Obama’s 2013 inauguration, a Jumpshot spokesperson said, “Unfortunately, we can’t compare the two inaugurations, since Twitter live is a relatively new feature on the platform.http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/293462/twitter-streaming-of-inauguration-down-from-compar.html

[Citizen Rules]

Yup the Russians love Trump, alright.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0b/85/5f/0b855faf334ae5f352d7aced5344d65d.jpg

[Movie Max]

I guess that means 23% less than the 6.8 million twitter viewers on election night ...???

6.8 Million Viewers Watch Twitter Live Stream of BuzzFeed News' Election Night Special
We did it America" live stream reached 6.8 million unique viewers. This was the most-viewed U.S. election related live stream on Twitter, surpassing unique viewer totals for U.S. political convention and presidential debate live streams.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/68-million-viewers-watch-twitter-live-stream-of-buzzfeed-news-election-night-special-300360415.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/68-million-viewers-watch-twitter-live-stream-of-buzzfeed-news-election-night-special-300360415.html)

[Iroquois]

It's not just a terrorist cult on the other side of the world, but a spreading ideology that has and is establishing footholds in virtually every nation on Earth, implementing its own misogynist codes to supercede secular laws, and which is growing geometrically and recruiting untold numbers from the wider Islamic community to its most extreme factions.

If you don't realize that, then you haven't been paying attention. ;)

The President's decisions do indeed have reverberations - Trump hasn't even been in office a single business day yet to make any official decisions.

If you're that worried about a spreading ideology establishing footholds in virtually every nation on Earth and implementing its own misogynist codes to supersede secular laws, wait until you find out about the so-called "alt-right".

[Yoda]

I think, if the alt-right starts amassing an actual body count on par with radical Islam, he'd probably feel similarly concerned about it.

[Iroquois]

Wanna bet?

[Yoda]

Come up with a way to bet on a counterfactual, and you're on.

But what exactly are you suggesting here, anyway? That he dislikes Islamic extremists more than the alt-right for some kind of hidden/bigoted reason, and that the fact that they've murdered a bunch of people is just a convenient excuse?

[Iroquois]

It's more that he comes across as a concern troll by looking at the various Women's Marches and openly pondering why these same numbers didn't turn out in protest of radical Islam. When I offered my own response that attempted to address the reasons for this, he disregarded almost all of the post except for a couple of sentences he bolded and responded to out of the necessary context. It becomes telling when he tries to emphasise the misogynistic elements of radical Islam as a valid reason why they should be fought against, yet his post would also indicate that he thinks that the Women's Marches were inspired solely by the grab-em-by-the-pussy tape and nothing else. When I challenged this dissonance in my post (and giving him a chance to defend or re-articulate his point in the process), he ignored it (except, ironically, the part where I wrote "you haven't been paying attention").

[Yoda]

Those may all be reasonable things to object to, but which of them leads to the idea he cares about one more than the other for some shameful or flimsy reason, rather than the really overt one about blowing up innocent people?

[Iroquois]

It was his response to my response. Like I said, I gave him the chance to counter what I wrote specifically. What he did was ignore most of it, bold a couple of sentences out of context, and reiterate his original point without significant elaboration. If he was that concerned with understanding the reasons for the Women's March and why/how it would take such an incredible level of precedence over protesting radical Islam, then he would have actually tried to address the specific reasons I cited rather than just repeat his prevailing concern with barely any acknowledgment of what I actually wrote.

[Roy C.]

Since this is a movie forum, let me just say that Martin Sheen's character in The Dead Zone is like a clone of Trump. Maybe that movie predicted the future.

[Yoda]

It was his response to my response. Like I said, I gave him the chance to counter what I wrote specifically. What he did was ignore most of it, bold a couple of sentences out of context, and reiterate his original point without significant elaboration. If he was that concerned with understanding the reasons for the Women's March and why/how it would take such an incredible level of precedence over protesting radical Islam, then he would have actually tried to address the specific reasons I cited rather than just repeat his prevailing concern with barely any acknowledgment of what I actually wrote.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what you said in the previous post. It explains why you think his concern for the women's march's aims aren't genuine, but I don't see how it explains the implication that his concern for radical Islam means he should be similarly concerned about the alt-right. Or why you'd think his real reasons aren't related to the manifest violence involved, which is actually such an outrageous suggestion that I'm inclined to think I've misunderstood.

[Iroquois]

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what you said in the previous post. It explains why you think his concern for the women's march's aims aren't genuine, but I don't see how it explains the implication that his concern for radical Islam means he should be similarly concerned about the alt-right. Or why you'd think his real reasons aren't related to the manifest violence involved, which is actually such an outrageous suggestion that I'm inclined to think I've misunderstood.

In my original response to him, I also acknowledged how the actions being taken against countries that were known to be home to radical Islam cells incurred significant loss of innocent life (it is my understanding that a significant nonpartisan criticism of the Obama administration was to do with the prevalence of collateral damage caused by drone warfare). One of Steel's concerns was how radical Islam is enforcing its will at the cost of innocent lives, to which I countered that the incoming administration had floated multiple proposals to change policy in ways that would have similar consequences (such as repealing the ACA). That's without getting into the whole "ethnic cleansing" thing that would imply a lot of needless death in the future, but I know how you feel about extreme examples so never mind about that...for now.

As for Steel's real reasons, well, both you and I can only speculate since he hasn't elaborated on them. I do find it questionable when people see a reaction to injustice and counter by mentioning a more severe injustice that is tangentially related at best. It's the kind of "starving African" logic where I question whether it's being mentioned out of genuine concern for the more afflicted party or if it's just being used as a tool for downplaying the legitimacy of other people's "less important" concerns. It might even be both in this case. In any case, it's down to what Steel is willing to say, and if he's not willing to say that much then I do have to wonder why.

[Captain Steel]

If you're that worried about a spreading ideology establishing footholds in virtually every nation on Earth and implementing its own misogynist codes to supersede secular laws, wait until you find out about the so-called "alt-right".

If the alt-right is what you say they are, Iro, then we beat those Ratzis back in 1945!

And if they want to come back, then let Adolf, Hideki, and Benito Jr. just try! We'll mertilize the bums!

[Yoda]

In my original response to him, I also acknowledged how the actions being taken against countries that were known to be home to radical Islam cells incurred significant loss of innocent life (it is my understanding that a significant nonpartisan criticism of the Obama administration was to do with the prevalence of collateral damage caused by drone warfare).
Do I really need to explain the distinction between targeting innocent civilians and targeting people deliberately hiding among them? Because international law's been pretty clear on the difference since approximately forever.

One of Steel's concerns was how radical Islam is enforcing its will at the cost of innocent lives, to which I countered that the incoming administration had floated multiple proposals to change policy in ways that would have similar consequences (such as repealing the ACA). That's without getting into the whole "ethnic cleansing" thing that would imply a lot of needless death in the future, but I know how you feel about extreme examples so never mind about that...for now.
I don't have any inherent objection to extreme examples. They usually get a bad rap, even though they're ideal for illustrating the limits of a given principle, for example. I object to them being equated to clearly incomparable things. For example, likening the murder of innocent civilians to health care reform, for goodness' sake.

But again, all of this is beside the point. You're giving me all sorts of reasons you doubt whether he really cares about the march's goals. That's all fair. You're giving me reasons he should rethink the methods we use to combat terrorism. Also fair. But none of it explains why radical Islam is supposed to be analogous to the alt-right so that his concern for one must apply to the other, nor does it explain why you wouldn't take his concerns for the former at face value. That has nothing to do with any of this stuff about marches or methods.

As for Steel's real reasons, well, both you and I can only speculate since he hasn't elaborated on them. I do find it questionable when people see a reaction to injustice and counter by mentioning a more severe injustice that is tangentially related at best. It's the kind of "starving African" logic where I question whether it's being mentioned out of genuine concern for the more afflicted party or if it's just being used as a tool for downplaying the legitimacy of other people's "less important" concerns.
So do I, which is one of the reasons I disagreed with him, too. And I somehow managed to do it without implying or assuming anything about his motives, let alone anything dramatic about how maybe he doesn't really care about terrorism for the reasons he says.

[Camo]

Since this is a movie forum, let me just say that Martin Sheen's character in The Dead Zone is like a clone of Trump. Maybe that movie predicted the future.

He's practically a caricature of a bad/dangerous world leader. You could compare him to anyone, i actually have seen him compared to Putin on a few occasions. Trump is awful i agree but no, Sheen's barely a character in that movie.

[Captain Steel]

It's more that he comes across as a concern troll by looking at the various Women's Marches and openly pondering why these same numbers didn't turn out in protest of radical Islam. When I offered my own response that attempted to address the reasons for this, he disregarded almost all of the post except for a couple of sentences he bolded and responded to out of the necessary context. It becomes telling when he tries to emphasise the misogynistic elements of radical Islam as a valid reason why they should be fought against, yet his post would also indicate that he thinks that the Women's Marches were inspired solely by the grab-em-by-the-pussy tape and nothing else. When I challenged this dissonance in my post (and giving him a chance to defend or re-articulate his point in the process), he ignored it (except, ironically, the part where I wrote "you haven't been paying attention").

Iro, I understand the reasons for the women's marches. I realize it goes beyond JUST Trump's "open-mic" comments. But the response to Trump (the protests) has gone global.

I've just been wondering why that same fervor is never and has never been demonstrated toward something far more extreme and that's been going on at a constant & growing rate for at least 15 years (Islamic terrorism).

We all know the answer, but no one wants to say it. (shhh... it's all about political correctness, but it would take up too much space to type out a subject entire books are written on.)

One part of it is that women (and others) are free to protest Trump. Trump's very office stands for protecting people's rights to criticize it freely and without fear of reprisals. No one has to worry about America declaring fatwas on people for protesting it's leader. The reason no one protests fundamentalist Islam and the terrorism it produces is because there is no protection - to speak out against it publicly is a death warrant, to do so enmasse would be the next excuse for thousands more dead in the street at the hands of jihadist who seek to teach anyone who speaks the truth about their ideology a fatal lesson (i.e. they'll kill you and your whole family for saying Islam is NOT a religion of peace!)

I've never said no one should protest Trump, I've only asked why that same fervor and level of protest (global) is not, nor has ever been leveled against actual terrorists or terrorist ideologies?

[Iroquois]

If the alt-right is what you say they are, Iro, then we beat those Ratzis back in 1945!

And if they want to come back, then let Adolf, Hideki, and Benito Jr. just try! We'll mertilize the bums!

Yeah, but wouldn't it be better if we beat them before allowing years of warfare and genocide to happen first?

Do I really need to explain the distinction between targeting innocent civilians and targeting people deliberately hiding among them? Because international law's been pretty clear on the difference since approximately forever.

I suppose not.

I don't have any inherent objection to extreme examples. They usually get a bad rap, even though they're ideal for illustrating the limits of a given principle, for example. I object to them being equated to clearly incomparable things. For example, likening the murder of innocent civilians to health care reform, for goodness' sake.

Then the question becomes whether you reject it as an absurd non sequitur or if you actually think about what kind of circumstances would lead to someone genuinely making such a claim. If the concern with radical Islam is that it controls state governments and has them implement policies that have negative consequences for certain demographics, then consider what the U.S. government does that would merit such a comparison. The reason I brought up the GOP's plan to repeal the ACA (even though they were having trouble agreeing on a suitable replacement plan) is because that is a government policy where the consequences will negatively affect certain demographics. The major concern with getting rid of it completely is that preventing people from being able to access health care would ultimately lead to people being unable to get better from illnesses and eventually dying. If a person dies because government legislature prevents them from being cured, does that not mean that the state is indirectly responsible for their death? It may not involve death squads straight-up murdering people on explicitly religious grounds, but does that mean the deaths that do happen are automatically more acceptable? That's without taking actual religious/conservative American politicians like Pence into account, though that could fill a paragraph on its own. All I'm saying is that maybe there's a reason people are concerned enough to make such an extreme comparison.

But again, all of this is beside the point. You're giving me all sorts of reasons you doubt whether he really cares about the march's goals. That's all fair. You're giving me reasons he should rethink the methods we use to combat terrorism. Also fair. But none of it explains why radical Islam is supposed to be analogous to the alt-right so that his concern for one must apply to the other, nor does it explain why you wouldn't take his concerns for the former at face value. That has nothing to do with any of this stuff about marches or methods.

They're both ideologically driven movements that have an invested interest in amassing political power, though I'll concede there are differences between the two and that the practical enforcement of one ideology can be more readily observed than with the other (though who knows how much that'll change with Steve Bannon of all people as chief White House strategist). As for whether or not I should take Steel's concern at face value, I think that is admittedly the result of spending so long on the defensive and being unable to tell at a glance whether a question is coming from a place of genuine interest or actually does have an ulterior motive (as with aforementioned "concern trolls", which I've spent far too much time dealing with on here alone). At least now that he's elaborated on it to a satisfactory extent I can at least respond in kind, but the particular phrasing of the original post was structured in a way that didn't seem quite right to me.

So do I, which is one of the reasons I disagreed with him, too. And I somehow managed to do it without implying or assuming anything about his motives, let alone anything dramatic about how maybe he doesn't really care about terrorism for the reasons he says.

The added context didn't help matters, that's for sure.

Iro, I understand the reasons for the women's marches. I realize it goes beyond JUST Trump's "open-mic" comments. But the response to Trump (the protests) has gone global.

I've just been wondering why that same fervor is never and has never been demonstrated toward something far more extreme and that's been going on at a constant & growing rate for at least 15 years (Islamic terrorism).

I sort of touched on this already, but I guess the main question would be to ask not what the protest is about but who the protest is aimed towards. Almost everyone agrees that Islamic State is bad regardless of their own political or religious affiliations and there are already efforts to attack regions where they are known to be a presence. However, the state of international diplomacy and the military capabilities of various nations makes further intervention a difficult and untenable situation. That's another problem with Trump - between his volatile personality and political inexperience, the reason why people are so afraid that he'll use nukes or whatnot is that such a decision (even against an universally disagreeable group like IS) could end up setting off a world war because it would disregards the delicate tensions between various opposing nations. One of his campaign points was that he would be tougher on ISIS, which may sound impressive to the voter base but isn't necessarily so practical in reality.

To tie this all back into the question of why people don't protest IS - what would be the point? Everyone knows it's bad and, as you acknowledge later on, such protests would paint people as targets for IS. The only real protests would be coming from people who wanted the government to be even tougher on ISIS (and their more practical course of action would have been to support a leader who planned to get tougher on ISIS), but that's off-set by the fact that there's no telling what the consequences of greater direct action against ISIS would be.

We all know the answer, but no one wants to say it. (shhh... it's all about political correctness, but it would take up too much space to type out a subject entire books are written on.)

Yet in your next paragraph you say that the reason is because there is no protection against terrorist violence. Political correctness is irrelevant in this case, so bringing it up like this doesn't help anyone.

One part of it is that women (and others) are free to protest Trump. Trump's very office stands for protecting people's rights to criticize it freely and without fear of reprisals. No one has to worry about America declaring fatwas on people for protesting it's leader. The reason no one protests fundamentalist Islam and the terrorism it produces is because there is no protection - to speak out against it publicly is a death warrant, to do so enmasse would be the next excuse for thousands more dead in the street at the hands of jihadist who seek to teach anyone who speaks the truth about their ideology a fatal lesson (i.e. they'll kill you and your whole family for saying Islam is NOT a religion of peace!)

Yeah, well, it's only been a few days. With stuff like Sean Spicer's press conference and Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts" becoming such memetic instances of the Trump administration's inability to handle the truth, people do question how far they'll go to contradict those who oppose them even in the form of peaceful protest. At the very least, I don't think people's concerns about these being the circumstances to give rise to all-out fascism are totally overreacting.

I've never said no one should protest Trump, I've only asked why that same fervor and level of protest (global) is not, nor has ever been leveled against actual terrorists or terrorist ideologies?

You did kind of answer your own question in that last paragraph.

[Movie Max]

Trump's ceremony likely did edge out Obama's online. On Friday, CNN's live stream audience peaked with 2.3 million devices streaming at the same time, larger than the 2009 inauguration's max of 1.3 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/sean-spicer-white-house-news-conference-fact-check/

[Friendly Mushroom!]

Just as I thought, alt-righters are whining like the liberals they are supposed to be nothing like.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/oscars-la-la-land-ties-all-time-record-with-14-nominations-140250277.html?bcmt=1

[Movie Max]

I'll watch just to see Colbert.:yup:

[Movie Max]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ4U_V7fGr8

[Yoda]

Then the question becomes whether you reject it as an absurd non sequitur or if you actually think about what kind of circumstances would lead to someone genuinely making such a claim.
Not only are these not mutually exclusive, but it's thinking about those circumstances that leads me to conclude it's an absurd non-sequitur in the first place.

And really, is this a posture that's applied consistently? I can't imagine that, when an alt-right person says something nuts about men being oppressed, your first thought is "that statement is so extreme that they wouldn't have made it without a good reason."

The reason I brought up the GOP's plan to repeal the ACA (even though they were having trouble agreeing on a suitable replacement plan) is because that is a government policy where the consequences will negatively affect certain demographics. The major concern with getting rid of it completely is that preventing people from being able to access health care would ultimately lead to people being unable to get better from illnesses and eventually dying. If a person dies because government legislature prevents them from being cured, does that not mean that the state is indirectly responsible for their death? It may not involve death squads straight-up murdering people on explicitly religious grounds, but does that mean the deaths that do happen are automatically more acceptable?
Well, first: yes, of course it does. Arbitrary death squads are in a different moral stratosphere even than directly removing someone's healthcare, nevermind merely refusing to subsidize it or, as is more likely to be the case, simply subsidizing some of it by some different amount or mechanism.

But there are other major problems with the comparison even if you leave the moral distinctions out entirely:

1) If you're going to treat anything the government does that might even lead indirectly to death as if it were akin to a war crime (!), then any significant government policy is going to qualify, particularly anything affecting health care. There's no way to upend an industry of that size without this happening, and that includes the enactment of the ACA. You don't think anyone who saw their premiums skyrocket had to drop insurance as a result, and got sick, or will?

2) If undoing this kind of policy is the same as killing anyone relying on it, then you'd be unable to avoid the inverse implication that instituting the policy is akin to hostage-taking.

3) If you want to venture into the murky, speculative world of second-order consequences, cool, but you have to consider all of them. If subsidizing insurance less is "killing" people, then it would logically follow that spurring medical innovation would be "saving" people. Ditto any policy that makes it easier to provide high-end care, since the dearth of such care is a hallmark of virtually every socialized health care system the world over.
So if you want to adopt this kind of ripple-effect standard, you can, but you can't pick just the bad second-order effects and ignore the good ones. Granted, you may not believe these second-order effects will bear out (though I think the preponderance of evidence clearly suggests at least some of them will), but at that point you'd no longer be arguing from a shared premise about how they're "killing" people and don't care. You'd simply have a difference of opinion about what produces better overall care in the long-term.

All I'm saying is that maybe there's a reason people are concerned enough to make such an extreme comparison.
I'm sure there is, but being concerned doesn't mean any rhetoric employed in service of that concern is valid or fair. In fact, I'd say the correlation runs the other way: the more concerned someone is, the less likely they are to make reasonable comparisons.

They're both ideologically driven movements that have an invested interest in amassing political power, though I'll concede there are differences between the two and that the practical enforcement of one ideology can be more readily observed than with the other (though who knows how much that'll change with Steve Bannon of all people as chief White House strategist).
Are you saying that you think Steve Bannon might convince the current government to start deliberately killing innocent people for ideological reasons?

As for whether or not I should take Steel's concern at face value, I think that is admittedly the result of spending so long on the defensive and being unable to tell at a glance whether a question is coming from a place of genuine interest or actually does have an ulterior motive (as with aforementioned "concern trolls", which I've spent far too much time dealing with on here alone).
Yeah, I'm not suggesting you take everything he says at face value, just that (reasonably) suspecting him of "concern trolling" on the women's march hardly seems like a reason to think he might not really care about innocent life at all.

[Captain Steel]

Iro, over the course of this discussion you've questioned my motives.

I think it's pretty clear that I'm motivated by a desire to see a global unification against terrorism (including the overt & extremist misogyny inherent within the ideology), not just in a military respect, but the entire world uniting in one voice to say that we - yes, even we civilians wherever you may find us - are not going to stand for it anymore and we are no longer afraid to say so.

If the only answer as to why that does not occur is that the world is too afraid of Islamic Terrorism (and will only stick to publicly opposing "safe" targets like the U.S. President) then it become obvious that Terrorism has met one of its primary goals and has already won - we might as well all surrender and declare Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as chief Caliph over all the Earth.

P.S. Thanks to Yoda for keeping an open mind and not casting unfounded aspersions.

[Citizen Rules]

I've known Captain Steel for a long time, even before I came to MoFo. He's a good internet friend, an intelligent & informed person, and I invited him here to MoFo.
I can vouch for him, he's no troll...

If you wonder why he's so adamant in his hate for ISIS, it's because he understands that ISIS is a real threat to the welfare of humanity and democracy...they are not just a group of thugs. He knows ISIS is a spreading ideology of violence and suppression that has the power of religion behind it, and coupled with political aspirations, which makes ISIS the most dangerous idea on the planet.

I believe Captain Steel feels that Trump is our best chance to stop the spread of radicalized Islam. I know Steel isn't a fan of Trump per say, but I will venture a guess based on what I know of Steel, that he finds the global women marches against Trump laudable, as Trump isn't in the same evil league as ISIS...and yet people are reluctant to call radicalize Islam what it truly is: an evil that is based on their twisted religious beliefs...and in the west we find criticizing any religious beliefs to be politically incorrect. Though we have no problem protesting a president.

[Captain Steel]

I've known Captain Steel for a long time, even before I came to MoFo. He's a good internet friend, an intelligent & informed person, and I invited him here to MoFo.
I can vouch for him, he's no troll...



I could be a sleeper troll - establishing long-term Internet trust (and talking about such things as "movies" on other threads) until my secret cell leader gives the code word to unleash socio-politic-religious rants upon unsuspecting sites! ;)

[Movie Max]

So, now twitter streaming surpassed election day? Earlier it was 23% less.:confused:

Record 6.8 Million Watched Trump's Inauguration On Twitter's Live Stream
The inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20 drew a record-breaking audience to Twitter’s live-streaming service. Twitter announced today that over 6.82 million unique viewers watched its live feed of the event, slightly surpassing the 6.8 million viewers who watched Twitter’s live feed on Election Night last November.

Still, Trump’s inauguration may have been the most live-streamed event in history, signaling both the rapid growth of online live video services and the launch of a presidency uniquely suited to social media. After all, this is the first presidential inauguration to take place after Facebook launched its live-streaming services for everyone in April 2016 and Twitter launched its live-streaming application Periscope in 2015.http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettedkins/2017/01/24/record-6-8-million-watched-trumps-inauguration-on-twitters-live-stream/#5246eaac3708

Here are the stats we have so far on Twitter's live stream of Trump's inauguration
The audience for Twitter's live stream of the inauguration was 23% smaller than that of the Election Day live stream. More than 70% of the audience was male, and nearly half of all viewers were between 18 to 24 years old. These figures are consistent with Twitter's audience on other recent political live streams.http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-inauguration-live-stream-stats-2017-1

[Movie Max]

Very nice idea with the Skype Seats.

The White House is adding four ‘Skype Seats’ to its press briefings

Among the revelations at Sean Spicer’s first official White House briefing as press secretary was the newly minted administration’s plans to add a quartet of so-called “Skype Seats” to the room beginning this week.

The addition is an attempt to open the traditionally closed-off briefing up to reporters outside of the White House walls. According to Spicer, the rotating seats will be open to reporters 50 miles outside of the Washington D.C. area whose news outlets don’t already have a hard pass to the briefing room.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/23/skype-seats/

[TONGO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ4U_V7fGr8

Attacked?! LOL! :lol:

This is basically showing a young man, the Trump supporter, getting hassled by an anti-trump old woman - period. This young man then calls security, and after she explains how she was burying her mother-in-law, this young man does nothing, and shes escorted off the plane. He could have been a real man and forgiven her, apologized for her loss, and maybe that would have reached her. So does this make the Trump supporter a "hero"? :laugh:

Hero and Attacked are two words being used way too frequently and inaccurately nowadays.

[Citizen Rules]

I would have to know more of what instigated that argument to be able to make a judgement call. But one thing is clear, don't mess with airline security! It's a federal crime to impede and disobey orders on an airline from the flight staff, and that lady was foolish for taking her argument that far.

[Movie Max]

I would have to know more of what instigated that argument to be able to make a judgement call. But one thing is clear, don't mess with airline security! It's a federal crime to impede and disobey orders on an airline from the flight staff, and that lady was foolish for taking her argument that far.

Woman kicked off plane for berating Trump supporter
Koteskey, in a Facebook post, said the woman was even more discourteous to him before the cameras began rolling. He said the entire incident was touched off when she asked if Koteskey was “here to cheer or protest.” Koteskey replied he was merely in town to “celebrate democracy.”

“And I’m entitled to get drunk and puke in your lap!” the woman allegedly said. “I’m going to throw up right in your lap! You make me sick! Don’t talk to me! Don’t look at me! Don’t you dare even put your arm on that rest. You disgust me! You should be ashamed of yourself! You put a maniac’s finger on the button. You are a bigot. You should get off this plane!”
http://nypost.com/2017/01/23/woman-kicked-off-plane-for-berating-trump-supporter/

[Citizen Rules]

We would have to know if: she made physical contact with him, or threatened him, or if he asked her to stop talking to her, stuff like that.

These days the airlines will pull anyone off a plane that is a disturbance. And it's clear from the fact that she didn't follow the two flight attendants instructions to leave the plane, that she was a disturbance... finally it took security to pull her off. So she was in the wrong there.

But I couldn't help but hear, USA, USA, USA chants on the plane, what the freaking hell does that have to do with anything!? That gave me the creeps.

[seanc]

I really don't understand these videos that circulate. It's quite possible I have never talked politics with a complete stranger. Let alone get into any kind of argument or altercation. I really think we are a country of infants.

[Movie Max]

What's even more shocking, is that he was flying back to Seattle. Isn't that blue territory?:( He may not even be a Trump supporter.

EDIT: Scratch that, Fox has him labelled as a Trump supporter. He was interviewed from Montana.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/23/woman-kicked-plane-trump-supporter-next-her

[Iroquois]

Iro, over the course of this discussion you've questioned my motives.

I think it's pretty clear that I'm motivated by a desire to see a global unification against terrorism (including the overt & extremist misogyny inherent within the ideology), not just in a military respect, but the entire world uniting in one voice to say that we - yes, even we civilians wherever you may find us - are not going to stand for it anymore and we are no longer afraid to say so.

If the only answer as to why that does not occur is that the world is too afraid of Islamic Terrorism (and will only stick to publicly opposing "safe" targets like the U.S. President) then it become obvious that Terrorism has met one of its primary goals and has already won - we might as well all surrender and declare Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as chief Caliph over all the Earth.

P.S. Thanks to Yoda for keeping an open mind and not casting unfounded aspersions.

As I pointed out earlier, I have no idea what such protest would even accomplish. You already live in a state where the previous and current administrations publicly oppose ISIS and are engaged in militarised conflict with them, so your opposition to ISIS as a citizen of said state is more or less implicit. Under these circumstances, do you really need to do a public demonstration declaring your opposition? ISIS already know and don't care that you hate them and want to "protest" them. That's kind of their business model. Not going to the effort of showing up to get angry at them does not automatically mean that you are "too afraid" of them. Just because you take cover on a battlefield instead of charging the enemy and screaming does not automatically mean that you are "too afraid" to fight them, but that you are at least aware that there are other options aside from impulsively trying to attack as soon as possible.

Also, just because ISIS is a threat (and I am not saying that it isn't) doesn't mean that I have to automatically consider Trump an acceptable choice - even with the understanding that he is functioning as a necessary evil. There are more ramifications to his appointment than just his approach to ISIS; "ISIS is bad" is quite possibly the least controversial stance he holds, so that's why I barely register it when assessing him as either a person or a politician. Boiling it down to this whole "we can't let the terrorists win" thing doesn't help matters.

I've known Captain Steel for a long time, even before I came to MoFo. He's a good internet friend, an intelligent & informed person, and I invited him here to MoFo.
I can vouch for him, he's no troll...

If you wonder why he's so adamant in his hate for ISIS, it's because he understands that ISIS is a real threat to the welfare of humanity and democracy...they are not just a group of thugs. He knows ISIS is a spreading ideology of violence and suppression that has the power of religion behind it, and coupled with political aspirations, which makes ISIS the most dangerous idea on the planet.

I believe Captain Steel feels that Trump is our best chance to stop the spread of radicalized Islam. I know Steel isn't a fan of Trump per say, but I will venture a guess based on what I know of Steel, that he finds the global women marches against Trump laudable, as Trump isn't in the same evil league as ISIS...and yet people are reluctant to call radicalize Islam what it truly is: an evil that is based on their twisted religious beliefs...and in the west we find criticizing any religious beliefs to be politically incorrect. Though we have no problem protesting a president.

"Laudable"?

It is possible to be accepting of Islam in general and still find the actions of ISIS to be reprehensible, so the idea that the only reason Islamic terrorism flourishes is because people are afraid of being politically incorrect strikes me as an opportunistic reach that doesn't help matters (which I did say in my previous post). Nobody accuses me of being politically incorrect when I criticise Mike Pence for letting his religious beliefs inform his approach to politics.

[ash_is_the_gal]

This is definitely not the kind of protest that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. talked about (but then he was a Christian & civil rights activist, not a politically correct Leftist).


today on, another white person using MLK for their own crappy keeping people in check quota...

[Yoda]

I think there's an important distinction between the abhorrent "MLK would have said..." and the much more reasonable "MLK actually told us exactly what he thought about this."

But kid gloves, regardless.

[Citizen Rules]

IMO...MLK would approve of the coming together of people of all race, creed or color to protest a bully who would impede the rights of Americans.

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Martin Luther King, Jr.


If he was alive today, MLK imo would have been adding his voice to the millions around the world who don't want to see the most powerful nation in the world openly endorse fervent nationalism, while retarding the rights of the free press and making a mockery out of America.

http://www.imagefully.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Famous-American-Martin-Luther-King-Jr-Day-2016-.jpg

[Movie Max]

If he was alive today, MLK imo would have been adding his voice to the millions around the world who don't want to see the most powerful nation in the world openly endorse fervent nationalism, while retarding the rights of the free press and making a mockery out of America.

I think he would be wearing a B/W striped jersey and playing referee between the white feminists, male feminists, non-white feminists, regular women with children, regular women without children and Madonna.:D

[donniedarko]

today on, another white person using MLK for their own crappy keeping people in check quota...

Can a black person not discuss the ideologies of a white activist?

[Movie Max]

For anyone interested, the very Liberal CBC published this opinion piece. I was surprised.:dizzy:

Hey, journalists: Give the pedantic, pointless Donald Trump fact-checking a rest
Fact-checking loses its value if it is perceived as a petty partisan exercise
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/pedantic-fact-checking-1.3953796

[Captain Steel]

Yeah, but wouldn't it be better if we beat them before allowing years of warfare and genocide to happen first?



I suppose not.



Then the question becomes whether you reject it as an absurd non sequitur or if you actually think about what kind of circumstances would lead to someone genuinely making such a claim. If the concern with radical Islam is that it controls state governments and has them implement policies that have negative consequences for certain demographics, then consider what the U.S. government does that would merit such a comparison. The reason I brought up the GOP's plan to repeal the ACA (even though they were having trouble agreeing on a suitable replacement plan) is because that is a government policy where the consequences will negatively affect certain demographics. The major concern with getting rid of it completely is that preventing people from being able to access health care would ultimately lead to people being unable to get better from illnesses and eventually dying. If a person dies because government legislature prevents them from being cured, does that not mean that the state is indirectly responsible for their death? It may not involve death squads straight-up murdering people on explicitly religious grounds, but does that mean the deaths that do happen are automatically more acceptable? That's without taking actual religious/conservative American politicians like Pence into account, though that could fill a paragraph on its own. All I'm saying is that maybe there's a reason people are concerned enough to make such an extreme comparison.



They're both ideologically driven movements that have an invested interest in amassing political power, though I'll concede there are differences between the two and that the practical enforcement of one ideology can be more readily observed than with the other (though who knows how much that'll change with Steve Bannon of all people as chief White House strategist). As for whether or not I should take Steel's concern at face value, I think that is admittedly the result of spending so long on the defensive and being unable to tell at a glance whether a question is coming from a place of genuine interest or actually does have an ulterior motive (as with aforementioned "concern trolls", which I've spent far too much time dealing with on here alone). At least now that he's elaborated on it to a satisfactory extent I can at least respond in kind, but the particular phrasing of the original post was structured in a way that didn't seem quite right to me.



The added context didn't help matters, that's for sure.



I sort of touched on this already, but I guess the main question would be to ask not what the protest is about but who the protest is aimed towards. Almost everyone agrees that Islamic State is bad regardless of their own political or religious affiliations and there are already efforts to attack regions where they are known to be a presence. However, the state of international diplomacy and the military capabilities of various nations makes further intervention a difficult and untenable situation. That's another problem with Trump - between his volatile personality and political inexperience, the reason why people are so afraid that he'll use nukes or whatnot is that such a decision (even against an universally disagreeable group like IS) could end up setting off a world war because it would disregards the delicate tensions between various opposing nations. One of his campaign points was that he would be tougher on ISIS, which may sound impressive to the voter base but isn't necessarily so practical in reality.

To tie this all back into the question of why people don't protest IS - what would be the point? Everyone knows it's bad and, as you acknowledge later on, such protests would paint people as targets for IS. The only real protests would be coming from people who wanted the government to be even tougher on ISIS (and their more practical course of action would have been to support a leader who planned to get tougher on ISIS), but that's off-set by the fact that there's no telling what the consequences of greater direct action against ISIS would be.



Yet in your next paragraph you say that the reason is because there is no protection against terrorist violence. Political correctness is irrelevant in this case, so bringing it up like this doesn't help anyone.



Yeah, well, it's only been a few days. With stuff like Sean Spicer's press conference and Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts" becoming such memetic instances of the Trump administration's inability to handle the truth, people do question how far they'll go to contradict those who oppose them even in the form of peaceful protest. At the very least, I don't think people's concerns about these being the circumstances to give rise to all-out fascism are totally overreacting.



You did kind of answer your own question in that last paragraph.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GFKpU6a8rM

[Blix the Goblin]

Can a black person not discuss the ideologies of a white activist?I demand you stop trying to use logic and take your daily dose of white guilt, you cis male bigot. #BlackLivesMatter #NotMyPresident #OscarsSoWhite #SmashThePatriarchy

[Captain Steel]

today on, another white person using MLK for their own crappy keeping people in check quota...

I don't follow.

My commenting on MLK was in response to the protests around inauguration day on which store windows were smashed, businesses were set on fire, people's property was destroyed, bystanders were assaulted, police officers had bottles thrown at them, were spat on and physically attacked, and hundreds of protesters were arrested on that one day in NYC & Washington DC (among many other cities) for acts of vandalism and violence against innocent people.

MLK preached NON-VIOLENT protests - he did not advocate unprovoked attacks on police or bystanders, arson or vandalism. He felt these things only demeaned the very points of protests and marked protesters who committed such acts as thugs and criminals who don't deserve to be heard. Being heard is the point of protesting, and King understood that you don't remove the focus from your message by diminishing it with violence. Thus, I said that the protests we witnessed last week were not the kind that Dr. King talked about.

[donniedarko]

Ah but alas you're forgetting Ashes point. You're white

[Dexter007]

In the week since Donald Trump became President of The United States, we've seen his administration lambast the media constantly while they lie about the size of his inauguration audience, we've seen Kellyanne Conway invent the term "alternative facts", which made the administration look like a bunch of idiots who've never heard of George Orwell. We've had Trump sign an executive order into effect that bans the members of several different countries from using visas to enter the United States, a xenophobic decision that targeted countries not responsiblle for or related to the terrorist incidents Trump cited as his reasoning for making the ban. Trump and his vice-president supported a anti-abortion march that looks backwards on female rights, while a much larger march supporting female rights condemned Trump for his abhorrent treatment of women in general. We all watched Trump sign another executive order regarding the now infamous "Wall" he's blabbed about for months; his doing so angered the Mexican President, humiliated our nation in front of one of our closest allies, and showcased his inability to negotiate (even though he brags about how good he is at it).

And all of this occurred within the week he became our President.

I don't know about you guys, but this doesn't seem like we'll all become "great again" anytime soon.

[Iroquois]

*video*

It's not like singling out Islam for its anti-woman tenets means that the other Abrahamic religions become bastions of pro-woman tolerance by default. The Christian right in America poses enough problems that it can't be thought of as a particularly preferable alternative just because it's not enforcing a full-on theocracy. I do think that the connection between feminism and (non-radical) Islam actually deserves further analysis, but that commentator's take came across as rather superficial and a bit hypocritical re: the difference between Islam and Judaism/Christianity. I'll even concede some issues with Western feminism (especially the kind that thinks that Muslim women need to be "saved" from their apparently oppressive religion even though that does disregard said women's autonomy and faith), but not in a way that I think justifies a complete and utter dismissal of Islam as a whole.

I don't follow.

My commenting on MLK was in response to the protests around inauguration day on which store windows were smashed, businesses were set on fire, people's property was destroyed, bystanders were assaulted, police officers had bottles thrown at them, were spat on and physically attacked, and hundreds of protesters were arrested on that one day in NYC & Washington DC (among many other cities) for acts of vandalism and violence against innocent people.

MLK preached NON-VIOLENT protests - he did not advocate unprovoked attacks on police or bystanders, arson or vandalism. He felt these things only demeaned the very points of protests and marked protesters who committed such acts as thugs and criminals who don't deserve to be heard. Being heard is the point of protesting, and King understood that you don't remove the focus from your message by diminishing it with violence. Thus, I said that the protests we witnessed last week were not the kind that Dr. King talked about.

On the other hand, consider this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph5g0jb8cE

MLK did condemn riots, true, but the greater point he makes in that clip is that people have to consider what kind of conditions led to riots in the first place and to condemn them just as much as the riots themselves. He thought the riots were a problem, not the problem. He is right in that the message gets lost when people only observe the damage caused by riots without considering the circumstances that led to the riots happening (as summed up by the line "a riot is the language of the unheard", committed by people who've been pushed too far by circumstances beyond their control). Even your comment focuses entirely on the rioting behaviour and lists what happened in detail but not on what would have driven those people to riot in the first place. That's the kind of reaction that MLK didn't want because it straight-up distracts from the real problem that is the cause of the riot. The reason why this gets framed as white people being the ones who "don't get" MLK is because they take his advocacy of non-violent protest at face value without considering the finer details behind said advocacy. He ends up being redefined as some saint-like figurehead of brotherly love even though this is the same MLK who spoke out against "white moderates" for caring more about order than peace. Stopping riots may create order, but it's making sure that people have no reason to riot that creates peace.

[Blix the Goblin]

MLK did condemn riots, true, but the greater point he makes in that clip is that people have to consider what kind of conditions led to riots in the first place and to condemn them just as much as the riots themselves.The "conditions" are that a bunch of spoiled college-age antifa idiots took advantage of the large protests to create havoc, while protestors watch in profound amusement and snap pictures on their smart phones. There are no deeper reasons beyond infantilism. These people are not the "unheard."Stopping riots may create order, but it's making sure that people have no reason to riot that creates peace.Radical ideologues will always be able to find a reason to stamp their feet and throw tantrums, it's called "not getting their way."

[Friendly Mushroom!]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-statement-marking-holocaust-remembrance-leaves-out-mention-of-jews/2017/01/27/0886d3c2-e4bd-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?tid=a_inl-amp&utm_term=.3b1304d80b6b#comments

[Iroquois]

The "conditions" are that a bunch of spoiled college-age antifa idiots took advantage of the large protests to create havoc, while protestors watch in profound amusement and snap pictures on their smart phones. There are no deeper reasons beyond infantilism. These people are not the "unheard."

You do realise that when I say "conditions" I'm referring to the reasons why the protests started in the first place as opposed to things that happened once said protests had already started, right?

Radical ideologues will always be able to find a reason to stamp their feet and throw tantrums, it's called "not getting their way."

You don't say.

[Captain Steel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-statement-marking-holocaust-remembrance-leaves-out-mention-of-jews/2017/01/27/0886d3c2-e4bd-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?tid=a_inl-amp&utm_term=.3b1304d80b6b#comments

As usual I'm not defending Trump, but I am critiquing his detractors:
One day they're condemning him for his loyalty and preferential treatment toward Israel, on another they're condemning him for not mentioning the Jews in a statement about the Holocaust.

I guess it's the same for every President - his opposition is going to attack no matter what he says, from the tiniest gaff to the most offensive insult - whether it's too much love for those Zionist Israeli Jews or forgetting to mention those poor Holocaust-victim Jews.

[mark f]

You mean he's pro-right wing causes whether they refer to a prime minister or the alt right's denying of a Jewish Holocaust. I'm actually referring to President Bannon who's pulling Trump's strings.

[Movie Max]

:D

http://trumpdonald.org/

[donniedarko]

Awe more liberals causing a disruption at Berkley and shutting down a speech because the speaker (Milo) hurt their feelings. They caused a ruckus at my campus as well.

can someone explain to me why it's always liberals and never conservatives shutting down speakers and rioting?

[Iroquois]

Awe more liberals causing a disruption at Berkley and shutting down a speech because the speaker (Milo) hurt their feelings. They caused a ruckus at my campus as well.

can someone explain to me why it's always liberals and never conservatives shutting down speakers and rioting?

When the speaker in question is world-famous for stuff like...well, all of this (https://bitchmedia.org/article/bad-things-milo-yiannopoulos-has-done-case-his-new-publisher-cares-just-kidding-they-totally), I daresay it goes beyond people just "having their feelings hurt" and into the territory of actual hate speech.

Besides, remember when Anita Sarkeesian was due to speak at a college and had to cancel due to a mass shooting threat (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/)?

[Captain Steel]

:D

http://trumpdonald.org/

I love this thing!
Reminds me of Terry Gilliam's work!

[donniedarko]

When the speaker in question is world-famous for stuff like...well, all of this (https://bitchmedia.org/article/bad-things-milo-yiannopoulos-has-done-case-his-new-publisher-cares-just-kidding-they-totally), I daresay it goes beyond people just "having their feelings hurt" and into the territory of actual hate speech.

Besides, remember when Anita Sarkeesian was due to speak at a college and had to cancel due to a mass shooting threat (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/)?


Isolated shooting threat =/= organized mass rioting

And I don't care what he said. It was not a peaceful protest, it was a riot with fires being started and property destroyed. How can you be okay with that because YOU find the speaker offensive.

[Iroquois]

Again with the caring more about the symptoms than the causes...

[donniedarko]

Again with the caring more about the symptoms than the causes...

Quoted for absurdity

[Iroquois]

Well, you are the third person I've addressed over this issue in the last page alone so the absurdity is not lost on me either.

[donniedarko]

You're literally saying that his offensive words justify rioting. That a speaker invited to the university warrants the destruction of private property, loitering, starting fires, attacking police and other students, etc.

[donniedarko]

Consistent with you constantly justifying riots though. Go have your car tires slashed in one if you're for their cause so much

[Gatsby]

Singling out one instance of a violent riot and ignoring other peaceful examples just to attack liberals is a bit irksome to me, but whatever.

[Yoda]

Again with the caring more about the symptoms than the causes...

You said this just a week ago:
I do find it questionable when people see a reaction to injustice and counter by mentioning a more severe injustice that is tangentially related at best. It's the kind of "starving African" logic where I question whether it's being mentioned out of genuine concern for the more afflicted party or if it's just being used as a tool for downplaying the legitimacy of other people's "less important" concerns.
And even putting inconsistencies aside, this is still a pretty glib response when things are, you know, on fire:

https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/826980737446391808

[donniedarko]

Singling out one instance of a violent riot and ignoring other peaceful examples just to attack liberals is a bit irksome to me, but whatever.

Everytime this is said I post dozens of instances. They're all around every college campus. And they're always by the left

[Iroquois]

You're literally saying that his offensive words justify rioting. That a speaker invited to the university warrants the destruction of private property, loitering, starting fires, attacking police and other students, etc.

Meanwhile, you're literally saying that you don't care what he said - what I'm saying is that you should. Milo isn't just some milquetoast academic who is being unfairly targeted by crazy liberals. He has a history of holding and promoting worldviews that exist in direct opposition to various marginalised groups (examples of which I linked to in one of my recent posts), to say nothing of instances where he acted upon (and encouraged others to act upon) those same worldviews at the expense of others (with the most famous instance being the harassment of Leslie Jones). His ideology is toxic and esteemed universities allowing him to speak publicly about said ideology grant him and his views an unfortunate degree of legitimacy, hence the protests against not just Milo himself but an institution that apparently doesn't see enough of a problem with giving him a platform.

Consistent with you constantly justifying riots though. Go have your car tires slashed in one if you're for their cause so much

Not sure how you get "riots are 100% acceptable no matter what" from me going "maybe we should be concerned with why the riots are happening in the first place instead of only being concerned about the riots themselves". I'd rather the riots didn't happen, but my reasons are to do with the addressing of actual injustice instead of just maintaining a superficially orderly status quo.

You said this just a week ago:

And even putting inconsistencies aside, this is still a pretty glib response when things are, you know, on fire:

https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/826980737446391808

At least someone is paying attention.

As for glibness, where do you stand on a person who says that they used the word "braindead" to refer to the Black Lives Matter movement because they figured that it was a nice way of putting how they really felt?

[Movie Max]

I'm not surprised. Here is a look at what we've gone through, so far...

Trump has no problem with Canada’s refugee vetting, even as he looks to toughen U.S. rules

On Sunday, Canadian officials confirmed that the vetting process for any incoming Syrian refugees has remained unchanged.

Every refugee has a face-to-face interview with a specially trained Canada Border Services Agency officer and that interview takes place in the country — usually Jordan, Lebanon or Turkey — to which they’ve fled. Information — including personal stories and histories — provided in those interviews is often verified by officials overseas.

Syrians seeking to come Canada would have also gone through a pre-screening process by the United Nations. Indeed, Canada is accepting only UN-designated refugees.

The Canadian process includes verifying the identities of any potential refugee and checking that individual against Canadian security databases as well as against databases maintained by U.S. Security officials.

And while Canada will accept single male adult refugees through the sponsored refugees process, the federal government, for now, continues to focus on accepting only families or children through the government-sponsored process.http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trump-has-no-problem-with-canadas-refugee-vetting-even-as-he-looks-to-toughen-u-s-rules

For ten years, our previous Conservative government had this approach...

‘Targeted for extermination’: Harper says prioritizing Christian and religious minority refugees isn’t discriminatory

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/targeted-for-extermination-harper-says-prioritizing-christian-and-religious-minority-refugees-isnt-discriminatory

In recent months, the Liberals still found a way to discriminate based on Age, Sex, Sexual Orientation and Marital Status...

Canada delays plan to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees
Canada has delayed its plan to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees and will target women, families and gay individuals as the most vulnerable groups that pose a lower security threat, the government said on Tuesday.https://www.ft.com/content/e38edb68-92ed-11e5-94e6-c5413829caa5

Why the delay? Well, because...

Majority of Canadians oppose Trudeau’s plan to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees over in just six weeks: poll

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/majority-of-canadians-oppose-trudeaus-plan-to-bring-25000-syrian-refugees-over-in-just-six-weeks-poll

More than 70% of Canadians think Liberals’ new refugee target is too high: poll

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/majority-of-canadians-dont-want-to-take-in-more-than-25000-syrian-refugees-new-poll

Please keep in mind, that a huge portion of the applications that were already in the system, processed and waiting, were started, accepted and approved by the previous Conservative government.

[Movie Max]

I missed the protests, vandalism, destruction and disruption related to this issue, or maybe they just didn't materialize because common sense prevailed.

Trudeau is discriminating against single, straight male refugees. Why is he afraid?
In the details of the Canadian government’s plan to resettle Syrian refugees is a disturbing subtext of discrimination and exclusion that ought to give supporters of the policy a moment of pause.

The policy, as it stands today, is that straight, single men travelling alone will have their applications denied or deferred – as will orphans without relatives already in Canada – while families, religious minorities and LGBT individuals will be prioritized. In other words, the government has decided that the lives of some refugees are worth more than others.When we choose to believe something about someone based on immutable traits such as race or ethnicity, that’s bigotry. When based on legitimate concerns, such as security, discrimination is warranted.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trudeau-is-discriminating-against-single-straight-male-refugees-why-is-he-afraid/article27480867/

[Yoda]

Meanwhile, you're literally saying that you don't care what he said - what I'm saying is that you should.
Pretty sure he's saying "I don't care" in the sense of "it doesn't justify violence," not in the sense of "I have no feelings about this."

Milo isn't just some milquetoast academic who is being unfairly targeted by crazy liberals.
...but that's happened a lot, too. Which makes me think they don't care about the distinctions you're making, either.

[Yoda]

Not sure how you get "riots are 100% acceptable no matter what" from me going "maybe we should be concerned with why the riots are happening in the first place instead of only being concerned about the riots themselves".
He probably gets it from stuff like this:

I'd rather the riots didn't happen.
At least someone is paying attention.
This is an almost comically insouciant response to political violence, and I don't see how it can be reconciled with a) your ostensible concern about Trump's authoritarian tendencies, or b) the quote I posted earlier, wherein you rightly condemn the idea that we should downplay unjust or dangerous things just because something less just or more dangerous is going on.

Also, what makes you think they're paying attention?

https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/827023417748635648
You seem to be defending the Platonic ideal of a violent protest, and not the largely aimless flailing these things seem to usually consist of. But this isn't just a philosophical question about whether or not these things can ever be theoretically justified: it's about what's literally happening right now.

I'd like to know if you actually have historically liberal ideas about speech and violence and the intersection of the two, because it's not really clear any more. It increasingly sounds like your issue is not with using violence for political ends, but just in doing so for the "wrong" ends. Which is a dangerous standard, for obvious reasons.

As for glibness, where do you stand on a person who says that they used the word "braindead" to refer to the Black Lives Matter movement because they figured that it was a nice way of putting how they really felt?
Why? Are you suggesting what I'm saying to you is rendered invalid if you decide I haven't criticized someone else enough? Because I just argued for a whole year with someone about why that's not a response.

[Movie Max]

US-Australia refugee deal: Trump in 'worst call' with Turnbull
Australia has controversially refused to accept the refugees - most of whom are men from Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq - and instead holds them in offshore detention centres on the Pacific nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38837263

[donniedarko]

Iro, stances like yours are why Democrats lost and keep losing.

Sorry one person calling the black lives matter movement brain dead is no reason to start fires and destroy private property. And frankly ya the movement organizers and what it stands for is exactly that- brain dead.

Have I now lost my freedom of speech by saying that?

[donniedarko]

I don't think FromBeyonds post should have been deleted. Pretty funny

[Yoda]

It was a direct, personal insult that made no accompanying argument, so that is, if you'll pardon the pun, a no-brainer for removal.

[John McClane]

I think the important thing we all need to acknowledge is why does the media assume that these protests are the work of card carrying Democrats? I'm willing to bet half, or more, of the people involved with these violent protests over the last few months don't even vote. In fact, they are probably not even registered to vote!

[donniedarko]

The rioters you are defending Iro:

Beat an already unconscious man with sticks (https://sendvid.com/xm1k6s4a)
Hit a Young Woman in the Head with a Pole and then pepper sprayed her (https://mobile.twitter.com/almostjingo/status/827009436749164544)
Pepper Sprayed a female supporter giving a peaceful interview (https://mobile.twitter.com/janeygak/status/826998516144697344)
https://youtu.be/WmRLJbIfDYg
Set a barricade and then lighted a car on fire
Attacked a Car driving through the street (https://mobile.twitter.com/michael_bodley/status/827009555859066882)
Attacked cars and then pepper sprayed the drivers (https://mobile.twitter.com/MisterMetokur/status/827012524969181186)
https://youtu.be/Iv1k7hZV0ds
and a complication of multiple assaults including a shooting


This is what you're defending. You're saying we should focus on some right wing homosexual Jewish speaker saying some offensive things instead of the "symptoms" your position is sickening

[donniedarko]

This reminds me of another time in history when political violence was either accepted or ignored by the Democrats
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XcXiUclebV8/hqdefault.jpg

[FromBeyond]

His ideology is toxic and esteemed universities allowing him to speak publicly about said ideology grant him and his views an unfortunate degree of legitimacy, hence the protests against not just Milo himself but an institution that apparently doesn't see enough of a problem with giving him a platform

You are unbelievable. Yeah protests are totally justified over one lone voice that dissents from the thousands of others .. of course he should not be allowed to speak and the only voice's that should be allowed to be heard are those that you agree with and that you don't find toxic.

[Captain Steel]

The rioters you are defending Iro:

Beat an already unconscious man with sticks (https://sendvid.com/xm1k6s4a)
Hit a Young Woman in the Head with a Pole and then pepper sprayed her (https://mobile.twitter.com/almostjingo/status/827009436749164544)
Pepper Sprayed a female supporter giving a peaceful interview (https://mobile.twitter.com/janeygak/status/826998516144697344)
https://youtu.be/WmRLJbIfDYg
Set a barricade and then lighted a car on fire
Attacked a Car driving through the street (https://mobile.twitter.com/michael_bodley/status/827009555859066882)
Attacked cars and then pepper sprayed the drivers (https://mobile.twitter.com/MisterMetokur/status/827012524969181186)
https://youtu.be/Iv1k7hZV0ds
and a complication of multiple assaults including a shooting


This is what you're defending. You're saying we should focus on some right wing homosexual Jewish speaker saying some offensive things instead of the "symptoms" your position is sickening

This is the result of a couple of generations of Poor Parenting. NO Parenting. No Discipline. Political Correctness. Entitlement Mentality. Participation Trophies. MTV A.D.D., Social Media Addiction. Rap Culture. Cults of Celebrity. Liberal Media. Ethics Unawareness. Destroyed Family Values. Destruction of the Traditional Family. Appeasing Terrorist Ideologies. And 8 years of Obama. ;)

[Kaplan]

I think the important thing we all need to acknowledge is why does the media assume that these protests are the work of card carrying Democrats? I'm willing to bet half, or more, of the people involved with these violent protests over the last few months don't even vote. In fact, they are probably not even registered to vote!

They're just thugs and idiots. This whole, "Oh, look at the liberals, they're such animals" assertion is tiresome, and hardly accurate, and just as Milo eats this up, you have others here eating it up as some sort of proof or justification for their beliefs. No, sorry, their beliefs need to stand on their own. These thugs are not part of the protests and most of them don't give a crap about any political issues. I hope all the thugs are locked up and kicked out of school if they go to Berkley. But I have no respect for anyone using riots as some sort of defense of their own belief system.

As a side note, people take Milo way too seriously. He's nothing more than a provocateur and a troll. He's like a less masculine version of Ann Coulter. The best way to deal with these people is to ignore them, not give them what they want.

[donniedarko]

It doesn't make my belief system right.

It's just a fact of the matter that the left is the side that tends to riot and attempt to shut down free speech when things don't go there way.

[Kaplan]

It doesn't make my belief system right.

It's just a fact of the matter that the left is the side that tends to riot and attempt to shut down free speech when things don't go there way.

A long history of "conservative" citizens and organizations shutting down or impeding free speech says otherwise. Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so.

[donniedarko]

I haven't seen much of it in the past 10 years

[Movie Max]

This is the result of a couple of generations of Poor Parenting. NO Parenting. No Discipline. Political Correctness. Entitlement Mentality. Participation Trophies. MTV A.D.D., Social Media Addiction. Rap Culture. Cults of Celebrity. Liberal Media. Ethics Unawareness. Destroyed Family Values. Destruction of the Traditional Family. Appeasing Terrorist Ideologies. And 8 years of Obama. ;)

... and teaching treason?:D

[John McClane]

It doesn't make my belief system right.

It's just a fact of the matter that the left is the side that tends to riot and attempt to shut down free speech when things don't go there way.
And it's just a matter of fact that the right sits on their rear doing nothing until they're back in the majority.

Oh, wait, is this not the thread where we post unsubstantiated claims as facts? ;)

[TONGO]

Case Study in Chaos: How Management Experts Grade a Trump White House

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/02/02/business/03STEWART/03STEWART-master768.jpg
In less than two weeks, Donald J. Trump has created upheaval at the nation’s borders, alienated longtime allies, roiled markets with talk of a trade war and prompted some of the largest protests any president has faced. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

For someone who promoted his management skills and campaigned as an “organizational genius,” as Anderson Cooper of CNN put it, it has been a rocky White House debut for Donald J. Trump, the first president to go directly from the executive suite to the Oval Office.

“Chaos” seems to be the word most often invoked, closely followed by “turmoil.” (One exception: the White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, who said he preferred “action-packed.”)

In less than two weeks, Mr. Trump created upheaval at the nation’s borders, alienated longtime allies, roiled markets with talk of a trade war and prompted some of the largest protests any president has faced.

The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal bemoaned a refugee policy “so poorly explained and prepared for, that it has produced confusion and fear at airports, an immediate legal defeat, and political fury at home and abroad.”

Even the top House Republican, Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who had released a statement praising the immigration order, later distanced himself, saying, “It’s regrettable that there was some confusion with the rollout.”

All new presidents undergo a learning curve. But Mr. Trump promised a seamless transition and, with a real chief executive in charge as opposed to a career politician, an administration that would function as a well-oiled machine.

So it doesn’t seem premature to ask some leading management experts for an assessment of Mr. Trump’s first weeks, purely from the viewpoint of organizational behavior and management effectiveness, as I did this week.

The unanimous verdict: Thus far, the Trump administration is a textbook case of how not to run a complex organization like the executive branch.

“This is so basic, it’s covered in the introduction to the M.B.A. program that all our students take,” said Lindred Greer, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. By all outward indications, Mr. Trump “desperately needs to take the course,” she said.

Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of organizational behavior at Stanford and the author of “Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t,” said Mr. Trump’s executive actions as president “are so far from any responsible management approach” that they all but defy analysis.

“Of course, this isn’t new,” he told me. “His campaign also violated every prudent management principle. Everyone including our friends on Wall Street somehow believed that once he was president he’d change. I don’t understand that logic.”

Wall Street did take notice. After months of cheering the prospect of tax reform and infrastructure spending, investors sold stocks after a weekend of chaos at the nation’s airports connected to the president’s executive order on immigration. On Monday, the Dow industrials experienced the biggest one-day decline since the election, fueled by worries that a dysfunctional White House wouldn’t be able to execute Mr. Trump’s policies.

“If you thought immigration was bad, just wait for health care,” Mr. Pfeffer warned.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

There is an enormous amount of literature and data exploring what constitutes effective management of complicated organizations. “The core principles have served many leaders really well,” said Jeffrey T. Polzer, professor of human resource management at Harvard Business School. “It’s really common sense: You want to surround yourself with talented people who have the most expertise, who bring different perspectives to the issue at hand. Then you foster debate and invite different points of view in order to reach a high-quality solution.”

This is often easier said than done. It “requires an openness to being challenged, and some self-awareness and even humility to acknowledge that there are areas where other people know more than you do,” Mr. Polzer continued. “This doesn’t mean decisions are made by consensus. The person at the top makes the decisions, but based on the facts and expertise necessary to make a good decision.”

Mr. Trump has already violated several of these core principles. The secretary of Homeland Security, John F. Kelly, was still discussing a proposed executive order restricting immigration when Mr. Trump went ahead and signed it. Nor was Jim Mattis, the defense secretary, consulted; he saw the final order only hours before it went into effect.

Not to consult thoroughly with top cabinet officers before deciding on the order “is insane,” since they “have the expertise and should be on top of the data,” Ms. Greer said. “Ignoring them leads to bad decisions and is also incredibly demoralizing.”

And there’s another reason to consult, Mr. Polzer said: “When people are genuinely involved in a decision and their input is heard and valued and respected, they are more likely to support and buy into the decision and be motivated to execute to the best of their abilities, even if the decision doesn’t go their way.”

Conversely, people who aren’t consulted feel they have no stake in a successful outcome.

Far from encouraging and weighing differing views as part of the decision-making process, Mr. Trump appears to view dissension as disloyalty. After career State Department officers circulated a draft cable questioning the effectiveness of the immigration ban, Mr. Spicer responded, “They should either get with the program or they can go.”

“Debate and dissent are essential to reaching any thoughtful outcome,” Ms. Greer said. Comments like Mr. Spicer’s “will discourage anyone from speaking up. You end up with group think, an echo chamber where people only say what they think the president wants to hear.”

And while it’s understandable that the president was eager to act swiftly to follow through on his campaign promises — he had made a long list of actions to be carried out on “Day 1” — his directives came across as needlessly hasty and poorly thought through. Some had to be reframed (talk of a Mexican border surcharge) or significantly modified and clarified after the fact (immigration policy).

I asked the management experts to ignore their views about the merits of Mr. Trump’s policies, but all said that execution and substance are inextricably linked.

“When you’re on the receiving end of a policy decision, the merits of the decision and the execution go hand in hand,” Mr. Polzer said. “If either one is done poorly, the outcomes will be bad. Even good plans that are poorly rolled out aren’t going to work well.”

For many people, the Affordable Care Act was indelibly tainted by the computer malfunctions that plagued its start. Similarly, for many Americans, the enduring image of Mr. Trump’s immigration policy will be that of a tearful Iraqi immigrant who was detained at Kennedy International Airport after risking his life working as a translator for the American military over a 10-year period. (He was released after lawyers intervened on his behalf.)

That prompted even Mr. Ryan to say, “No one wanted to see people with green cards or special immigrant visas, like translators, get caught up in all of this.”

Some Trump defenders have said that the president thrives on chaos, and it has proved to be an effective management approach for him in the past. But every expert I consulted said there is no empirical data or research that supports the notion that chaos is a productive management tool.

“I’m not aware of anyone who advocates that,” Mr. Polzer said. “I don’t really know what’s going on in the White House, so I don’t feel comfortable commenting on that specifically. But I can say in general that in organizational settings, less chaos is a good thing.”

Everyone agreed that there was still time for Mr. Trump to right the ship. Other administrations have had course corrections and personnel shake-ups. But having to reorganize only weeks into a first term is not promising.

If this were the private sector, “someone would be fired,” Ms. Greer said.

That seems highly unlikely, since Mr. Trump has not even acknowledged a problem, instead blaming the media for an impression of upheaval in the White House.

That is a fundamental problem, Mr. Pfeffer said. “No good business makes decisions that are based on falsehoods,” he said. “My sense is that Trump takes no one’s counsel but his own. That’s bad management, period.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/donald-trump-management-style.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

[Kaplan]

I haven't seen much of it in the past 10 years

LOL

Keeping the topic on Trump, just look at the way people have been harassed and threatened on twitter and social media just because they said something negative about Trump. Look at the union boss at Carrier, Megyn Kelly, or journalist David French, who detailed (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/26/499440089/harassed-on-twitter-people-need-to-know-the-reality-of-what-its-like-out-there) the abuse he and his wife endured from this army of Trump supporters. They aren't alone in having faced this and the twitter attacks went way beyond what the law protects. Tell me, would I be justified in using these examples as an indictment against everyone who supports Trump? I'm guessing you wouldn't think so.

Let's be clear about something: peaceful protests are not a violation of someone else's free speech, they are an expression of free speech, every bit as protected as Milo's. The rioters are criminals and are separate from the protesters.

And now we have this from the "president":

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256

Our rights to free speech is a protection from the government and now we have an idiot president who thinks a university is required to let someone speak there. That's not how it works. And he's threatening to take government action against the university. WTF? That's what happens when someone is elected to the highest office who has no clue about the constitution or what is and isn't free speech.

[TONGO]

LOL

Keeping the topic on Trump, just look at the way people have been harassed and threatened on twitter and social media just because they said something negative about Trump. Look at the union boss at Carrier, Megyn Kelly, or journalist David French, who detailed (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/26/499440089/harassed-on-twitter-people-need-to-know-the-reality-of-what-its-like-out-there) the abuse he and his wife endured from this army of Trump supporters. They aren't alone in having faced this and the twitter attacks went way beyond what the law protects. Tell me, would I be justified in using these examples as an indictment against everyone who supports Trump? I'm guessing you wouldn't think so.

Let's be clear about something: peaceful protests are not a violation of someone else's free speech, they are an expression of free speech, every bit as protected as Milo's. The rioters are criminals and are separate from the protesters.

And now we have this from the "president":

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256

Our rights to free speech is a protection from the government and now we have an idiot president who thinks a university is required to let someone speak there. That's not how it works. And he's threatening to take government action against the university. WTF? That's what happens when someone is elected to the highest office who has no clue about the constitution or what is and isn't free speech.

Yep. Trump supporters descend enmass whenever someone speaks out against him. Whats unnerving is when facts are shown to disprove his or their claims, it simply does not register with him or them.

[TONGO]

https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/827333659392954368

[Iroquois]

Pretty sure he's saying "I don't care" in the sense of "it doesn't justify violence," not in the sense of "I have no feelings about this."

I figured as much. The point still stands.

He probably gets it from stuff like this:

I don't follow.

This is an almost comically insouciant response to political violence, and I don't see how it can be reconciled with a) your ostensible concern about Trump's authoritarian tendencies, or b) the quote I posted earlier, wherein you rightly condemn the idea that we should downplay unjust or dangerous things just because something less just or more dangerous is going on.

Also, what makes you think they're paying attention?

I was actually referring to the fact that someone actually pays attention to what I write on here instead of just to the general events (as noted, donniedarko is the third person to point out the same concern but the only one to follow up on one of my rebuttals, and even then...), but for some reason I got the impression that specifying that would upset people. Glad that didn't happen.

You seem to be defending the Platonic ideal of a violent protest, and not the largely aimless flailing these things seem to usually consist of. But this isn't just a philosophical question about whether or not these things can ever be theoretically justified: it's about what's literally happening right now.

I'd like to know if you actually have historically liberal ideas about speech and violence and the intersection of the two, because it's not really clear any more. It increasingly sounds like your issue is not with using violence for political ends, but just in doing so for the "wrong" ends. Which is a dangerous standard, for obvious reasons.

I can try throwing out the uncertainties like how those causing the damage are either infiltrators who are deliberately trying to delegitimise the protests or simply people who want to break stuff regardless of political affiliation, but I also know how much that would sound like I'm throwing out excuses. I don't want that to happen because then you get people latching onto that and complaining about liberal hypocrisy, which is itself missing the greater point and means that I have to spend my time digging my way out of this pit of rationalisation instead of focusing on the important stuff (not like this isn't important, but still).

If anything, the problem is the common idea of "freedom of speech" that differs from the actuality. Treating this incident like it's a war on Milo's right to free expression only goes to highlight how there is a serious catch-22 when it comes to such "ideological differences" and is enough to make it sound like a loophole that keeps getting abused. If the "idea" of free speech is that everyone gets the right to speak their mind no matter how extreme or dangerous their views are, then whoever tries to directly stop the other one from speaking is going to become the default bad guy who opposes "freedom of speech" as a general concept. What I'm saying is that being aware of this is itself a tactic to legitimise your positions by framing your most obvious opponents as unreasonable and appealing to moderates who wishing to maintain both a sense of order and a moral high ground. It's bully logic - taunt a kid to the point where they try to hit back and then watch the kid get in trouble because all the rational grown-ups believe that Violence Is Never The Answer and just want to stop kids hitting each other no matter what. The taunts still leave their marks and the bully is free to make more.

As for historically liberal ideas about speech and violence...is this not one? Liberals pride themselves on having the moral high ground and champion ideas of equality and respect, but at what point do those traits stop being respectable ideals and start becoming exploitable weaknesses? Setting themselves up as righteous individuals who champion the common cause not only makes it easier for the opposition to magnify their shortcomings but also means that they can easily be written off as hypocrites for even slightly deviating from their professed nobility (and weakening the base in the process). I'm not sure that conservatives hold themselves to similarly high ideals, but if we're going to take a historical view, then I'm not sure they ever felt the need to do that.

Why? Are you suggesting what I'm saying to you is rendered invalid if you decide I haven't criticized someone else enough? Because I just argued for a whole year with someone about why that's not a response.

I guess it's on me for being 1) significantly disagreeable 2) able and willing to argue at length and 3) not being such an obvious waste of time to engage. That being said, it has been interesting to note the patterns regarding who you do or do not take the time to argue against.

Iro, stances like yours are why Democrats lost and keep losing.

Sorry one person calling the black lives matter movement brain dead is no reason to start fires and destroy private property. And frankly ya the movement organizers and what it stands for is exactly that- brain dead.

Have I now lost my freedom of speech by saying that?

Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "freedom of speech" only apply to the idea that the government cannot suppress your right to self-expression?

Also, you're going to have to elaborate on exactly what your problem is with BLM because so far I'm having trouble thinking of reasons to directly oppose a movement dedicated to addressing and opposing racially imbalanced instances of police brutality that wouldn't make the person in question come across as implicitly racist. You're not even trying to couch it in some vaguely semi-tolerant All Lives Matters type of rhetoric, which is concerning.

I don't think FromBeyonds post should have been deleted. Pretty funny

Based on their other posts, I seriously doubt that.

The rioters you are defending Iro:

This is what you're defending. You're saying we should focus on some right wing homosexual Jewish speaker saying some offensive things instead of the "symptoms" your position is sickening

Meanwhile, by dismissing BLM in its entirety you are writing off dozens (if not hundreds) of unnecessary deaths caused by racial prejudice, which I also consider a sickening position.

This reminds me of another time in history when political violence was either accepted or ignored by the Democrats
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XcXiUclebV8/hqdefault.jpg

I...what is the logic here? I know Godwin's Law doesn't really count for much these days, but trying to compare these protestors to the Klan is still a serious reach.

You are unbelievable. Yeah protests are totally justified over one lone voice that dissents from the thousands of others .. of course he should not be allowed to speak and the only voice's that should be allowed to be heard are those that you agree with and that you don't find toxic.

Yeah, well, questioning why Jewish people would be personally upset about the Holocaust because it happened 70 years ago (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1628111#post1628111) is pretty unbelievable too.

Besides, the problem is that he isn't alone. He's a public figure with considerable influence over a sizeable following, and him being granted the by-no-means-obligatory opportunity to speak at Berkeley gives his views a credibility that he wouldn't get simply from preaching to the Breitbart choir. Also, I refer you to my responses to Yoda earlier in this post. They go into detail about the issues with "free speech".

[donniedarko]

Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "freedom of speech" only apply to the idea that the government cannot suppress your right to self-expression?.

Yes, but what these groups trying to censor opposing views are pushing through coercion to not allow these opponenets of theirs to be invited to state campuses. Overall who wants to deal with a riot and its aftermath?

Also, you're going to have to elaborate on exactly what your problem is with BLM because so far I'm having trouble thinking of reasons to directly oppose a movement dedicated to addressing and opposing racially imbalanced instances of police brutality that wouldn't make the person in question come across as implicitly racist.

1.Well it's because the group offers no solution. Instead just embraces a false narrative and destructive marches.
2. Has kept using the "Hands Up DOn't Shoot" in rallies since Ferguson, even though that's been proven fabricated.
3. They have tended to push a race baiting agenda, anytime a black man is shot. Whether armed or not. Justified or not. All that matters is a black person was killed by cops
4. If black lives matter so much to the group why don't they adress black on black gang violence? After all that kills significantly more blacks than cops
5. They have defended life long thugs such as Michael Brown and Freddie Grey
6. They have a guilty until proven narrative with police, even though most officers they have faught against don't have enough evidence against them to even INDICT.

I'll give you 6 more if you actually adress all these points


You're not even trying to couch it in some vaguely semi-tolerant All Lives Matters type of rhetoric, which is concerning.

Meanwhile, by dismissing BLM in its entirety you are writing off dozens (if not hundreds) of unnecessary deaths caused by racial prejudice, which I also consider a sickening position.


Most evidence suggests blacks aren't killed in disproportionate rates to whites, when looking at crime. Nor are they arrested at higher rates either, in proportion to crime committed. SO this is already a false narrative. And frankly I don't believe the police forces in this nation are racist nor are most cops. In fact you're the one with a racial predjudice. Name one white person shot by cops? BLM and its supporters automatically assume the cop is in the wrong, despite no evidence. For me it matters on the case. Ariel Castro and Michael Gardner both appeared completely unjustified, but I still think that's poor policing- nothing to suggest racism. However Michael Brown who there's evidence showing him punching the cop who later shot him, and a thug who violently robbed a gas station minutes earlier, this shooting added up to being completely justified. In fact there wasn't enough evidence to indict Darren Wilson. And nothing to suggest racism. The true prejudice is this assumption that cops are racist. Tamir rice, the 12 year old who was shot with a toy gun?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/HT_guns_tamir_rice_01_jef_151228_16x9_992.jpg

One of those are the "toy". This is just a few examples of the BLM movement trying to spin cases to push a racial agenda.


I...what is the logic here? I know Godwin's Law doesn't really count for much these days, but trying to compare these protestors to the Klan is still a serious reach.

Both are commiting political violence against dissenting opinions and major democrats have been silent about the violence

[Iroquois]

Yes, but what these groups trying to censor opposing views are pushing through coercion to not allow these opponenets of theirs to be invited to state campuses. Overall who wants to deal with a riot and its aftermath?

Nobody wants to deal with a mass shooting and its aftermath either, but you don't think that Sarkeesian being forced to cancel because of such a threat is the same as what happened here? This is why I have trouble believing the real concern is about "censorship". Check out what I wrote to Yoda in my last post about the catch-22 of free speech.

1.Well it's because the group offers no solution. Instead just embraces a false narrative and destructive marches.

What, "stop killing black people" isn't enough of a solution? At the very least, encouraging the use of non-lethal combat methods or

2. Has kept using the "Hands Up DOn't Shoot" in rallies since Ferguson, even though that's been proven fabricated.

The reason it took off as a chant is because of its versatility beyond the specifics of Michael Brown's case, fabricated or not. It's not like shooting deaths in general have stopped being a concern.

3. They have tended to push a race baiting agenda, anytime a black man is shot. Whether armed or not. Justified or not. All that matters is a black person was killed by cops

Well, yeah. Isn't the point that it's supposed to apply public scrutiny to the kinds of killings that would otherwise be disregarded?

4. If black lives matter so much to the group why don't they adress black on black gang violence? After all that kills significantly more blacks than cops

Funnily enough, it's not the black people who need to be told that black lives matter.

5. They have defended life long thugs such as Michael Brown and Freddie Grey

Even they deserved due process and/or non-fatal means of detainment. It's not like Eric Garner deserved to be choked to death for selling cigarettes either.

6. They have a guilty until proven narrative with police, even though most officers they have faught against don't have enough evidence against them to even INDICT.

But who polices the police?

I'll give you 6 more if you actually adress all these points

Why? What would be the point of that? All it would do is waste our time, which I'm not entirely sure isn't a deliberate move on your part since I'm going to be the one having to constantly defend myself while you would apparently plan on throwing out claim after claim.

Most evidence suggests blacks aren't killed in disproportionate rates to whites, when looking at crime. Nor are they arrested at higher rates either, in proportion to crime committed. SO this is already a false narrative. And frankly I don't believe the police forces in this nation are racist nor are most cops. In fact you're the one with a racial predjudice. Name one white person shot by cops? BLM and its supporters automatically assume the cop is in the wrong, despite no evidence. For me it matters on the case. Ariel Castro and Michael Gardner both appeared completely unjustified, but I still think that's poor policing- nothing to suggest racism. However Michael Brown who there's evidence showing him punching the cop who later shot him, and a thug who violently robbed a gas station minutes earlier, this shooting added up to being completely justified. In fact there wasn't enough evidence to indict Darren Wilson. And nothing to suggest racism. The true prejudice is this assumption that cops are racist. Tamir rice, the 12 year old who was shot with a toy gun?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/HT_guns_tamir_rice_01_jef_151228_16x9_992.jpg

One of those are the "toy". This is just a few examples of the BLM movement trying to spin cases to push a racial agenda.

If you're going to go to the effort of putting a picture of the guns in here, what about a couple of statistic links regarding your claims? The burden of proof swings both ways here and stating what you "believe" about the cops only matters so much. Also funny to be accused of having racial prejudice - what race do you think I am anyway?

Both are commiting political violence against dissenting opinions and major democrats have been silent about the violence

And Hillary is just as bad as Trump, if not worse. Might as well ask why the mosque shooter didn't draw as much attention as Milo.