BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??

Subject: BS: Innaug--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 06:08 PM

Well? Regardless of who it is, the "changing of the guard" is historic. And as a citizen, don't I care about history in the making? On the other hand, *this guy*??? Would watching not imply some sort of endorsement of "him?"

Seriously, I am conflicted. Similarly, about performing. I mean, the honor. But the endorsement?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Innaug--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 06:28 PM

I feel the same, Saul. On the one hand I really do not want to be counted with those who support his presidency. On the other hand, I do want to "be there", as I would wish for any other historical event.

Oh, well, maybe someone will call me and invite to an all-day music party on that day. No contest!

Subject: RE: BS: Innaug--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 07:26 PM

I do not have a television, so I won't be watching the inauguration.

An impeachment, I'd buy a TV for.

Subject: RE: BS: Innaug--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: ChanteyLass
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 08:16 PM

I'll be doing my usual routine at the Y--exercise class for seniors, fitness circuit, yoga on my own. Then I'll eat something, take a nap, and go oy to hear folk music about an hour from home. Just another day. I rarely watch inaugurations, but I did watch parts of Obama's first one. Now that was history-making!

Subject: RE: BS: Innaug--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 08:26 PM

This will probably make even more history.

Practice by watching a few executions and a train wreck.

Subject: RE: BS: Innaug--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 09:23 PM

I haven't heard or watched one yet, so why start now?

Subject: RE: BS: Innaug--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: ragdall
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 09:47 PM

I will watch some, if I can find it on our cable provider's offerings. I need to convince myself that it will actually happen and is not just some elaborate publicity stunt.

Think "Amendment #25", people. It's there to be used.

rags

Subject: RE: BS: Innaug--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: meself
Date: 16 Jan 17 - 09:55 PM

Can't imagine what possible difference it would make whether you watch or not. The only meaning it would have would be whatever meaning you give the action of watching. "Endorsement"? You mean, if someone peeks in the window and sees you watching the inauguration, they'll take that as an expression of support for the new unpresidented president?

If you feel like watching it, watch. You can always tell yourself you don't want to miss it if he slips on a banana peel or if someone throws a pie in the buffoon's face.

Subject: RE: BS: Innaug--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 03:13 AM

Nielsen contacted us to determine whether they wanted us as a Nielsen Family to help compile their TV ratings, but we didn't watch enough TV to qualify (they paid us 3 bucks cash, though, for answering their questions). So, nobody is recording what I watch on TV. If we were a Nielsen Family, I wouldn't watch things like the Republican Convention and the Trump Inauguration. But since we don't count, I might watch.
And spend the three bucks foolishly....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 03:25 AM

Back in the day, Joe, Nielsen's was not so profligate- my first time I got paid one dime. Dime. Ten cents. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: gillymor
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 08:09 AM

This will be historic, we've never had a President and First Lady who have appeared in soft core porn productions. Will this be the first transition day that includes nudity? They've got to do something as the list of entertainers who've declined invitations to perform is staggering.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 09:26 PM

Well the inauguration of a Celtic king (or at least some of them) involved the candidate publicly fucking a mare, getting it boiled down into soup and then bathing in it. Anyone know what catering equipment has been ordered for this event?

It's rather telling that none of the Mudcatters professing support for Trump has been asked to perform - they haven't between them managed to demonstrate as much entertainment value as the voice of an I Can't Believe It's Not Butter commercial.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: CupOfTea
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 10:47 PM

Nope, not gonna watch.

If there's something outstandingly bizarre or outrageous, and thus worth watching, it'll be looped endlessly for days, so there's nothing to be gained in watching it live. I've never much liked watching parades, either, unless I personally knew someone who was marching in it. The whole idea of this man as president scares me profoundly, and I don't think watching the inauguration will make this reality any easier to deal with. I feel sorry for the former first families who feel obligated to attend.

I'm wondering - can cable providers tally who is watching the coverage? Some facebook posts suggest that having a tv turned on, gets you counted, and if you have your tv tuned to something OTHER than coverage of the event, you can reduce the % of the audience (and thus piss off His Twitliness). If you don't have it turned on, you don't make it into the count. If this is true, I can run the weather channel or animal planet all day.

But my evening - going to hear Reggie Harris in a house concert. I got my reservation in for that before I found out Mark Dvorak was going to be playing in the area Friday night as well. Reggie wins, since I got to hear Mark two months ago, and Reggie more like 3-4 years.Seems there are wonderful concerts to be had all over the place on Friday night, and supporting live music is something we all ought to think about doing regularly.

Joanne in Cleveland

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: EBarnacle
Date: 17 Jan 17 - 11:05 PM

At this point they can't even give the tix away and the orange one has a commercial on Facebook asking people to attend. It'll be fantastic. The public is staying away in droves so why bother watching on TV.
I understand Putin is flying in to hold the bible for the oath of office.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 04:23 AM

I watched Obama's. The first and, on current showing, the only one.

Tell me when it is safe to switch on the TV.

But I like the idea of switching on cable, live streaming &/or catch-up and even satellite TVs (Sky etc collect all data they can hence the phone connection) viewing another channel just to skew the figures. Do it America, make America Grate!

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Thompson
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 04:57 AM

The amount of electricity used is also a way of metering how many people watch. On certain occasions in Ireland the Electricity Supply Board has had to vary the supply as every household in the country goes to take a break and put on the kettle for a pot of tea when there's a particularly sensational current affairs show on TV; the usage will already be far higher than normal, then there's a surge at the ad break. So if you don't want to add to the figures, go for a walk during that couple of hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jack Campin
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:29 AM

In Edinburgh, I have this alternative to go to:

Bach/Handel benefit concert for refugees

No contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 10:57 AM

Ann Coulter says she's going.....didn't know who she was but stumbled on to one of her interviews with CNN.
It was the end of the night at the Democratic victory party, the interviewer ask her if she was "heading for home"....."No" says Ann, "I'm just going to sit here till morning and watch them cry"

Miss Coulter had been ridiculed and laughed at by CNN anchors after she was asked who she thought would be the Republican choice for Presidential candidate.....she responded immediately "Donald Trump!"

Now that took guts?

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 12:02 PM

Oh ho! Ake, please, please endorse Ms Coulter for office.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: gillymor
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 12:33 PM

Careful what you wish for Ebbie, our electoral college just provided us with one hate monger.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 03:03 PM

I was very impressed with Miss Coulter's grasp of US politics Ebbie, she was the only commentator that I heard directly predict Mr Trumps election to the Presidency?

I didn't know anything about her until a few weeks ago and since then I've watched several of her interviews on Youtube....she can take on a whole nest of "Luvvies", "Liberals" and other ideological flotsam singlehanded and wipe the floor with them.

I admire that in a woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 03:10 PM

Gilly, If you are looking for "hate merchants" surely you need look no further than these Mudcat threads, they are chock full of hatred.

Ebbie, in all seriousness what do you dislike about Miss Coulter other than her political views, which seem to be "libertarian right" to me, certainly not an extremist.
Is there something I should know?

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 03:22 PM

Yes, there is, ake. From Wikipedia:

Coulter is the author of twelve books, many of which have appeared on The New York Times Best Seller list, with a combined 3 million copies sold as of May 2009.[34]

Coulter's first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, was published by Regnery Publishing in 1998 and made the New York Times Bestseller list.[1] It details Coulter's case for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Her second book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, published by Crown Forum in 2002, reached the number one spot on The New York Times non-fiction best seller list.[35] In Slander, Coulter argues that President George W. Bush was given unfair negative media coverage. The factual accuracy of Slander was called into question by then-comedian and author, and now Democratic U.S. Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken; he also accused her of citing passages out of context.[36] Others investigated these charges, and also raised questions about the book's accuracy and presentation of facts.[37][38][39] Coulter responded to criticisms in a column called "Answering My Critics".[40]

In her third book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, also published by Crown Forum, she reexamines the 60-year history of the Cold War — including the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the Whittaker Chambers-Alger Hiss affair, and Ronald Reagan's challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall"—and argues that liberals were wrong in their Cold War political analyses and policy decisions, and that McCarthy was correct about Soviet agents working for the U.S. government.[41] She also argues that the correct identification of Annie Lee Moss, among others, as communists was misreported by the liberal media.[42] Treason was published in 2003, and spent 13 weeks on the Best Seller list.[43]

Crown Forum published a collection of Coulter's columns in 2004 as her fourth book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter.[44]

Coulter's fifth book, published by Crown Forum in 2006, is Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[45] In it, she argues, first, that American liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, and second, that it bears all the attributes of a religion itself.[46] Godless debuted at number one on the New York Times Best Seller list.[47] Some passages in the book match portions of others' writings published at an earlier time (including newspaper articles and a Planned Parenthood document), leading John Barrie of iThenticate to assert that Coulter had engaged in "textbook plagiarism".[48]

Coulter's If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (Crown Forum), published in October 2007, and Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Crown Forum), published on January 6, 2009, both also achieved best-seller status.[49][50][51]

On June 7, 2011, Crown Forum published her eighth book Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America. Coulter said she based this book heavily on the work of French social psychologist Gustave Le Bon, who wrote on mass psychology, and in it she argues that liberals have mob-like characteristics.[52]

Her ninth book, published September 25, 2012, is Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. It argues that liberals, and Democrats in particular, have taken undue credit for racial civil rights in America.[53]

Coulter's tenth book, Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 — Especially a Republican, was released October 14, 2013. It is her second collection of columns and her first published by Regnery since her first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.[54]

Coulter published her eleventh book, Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole on June 1, 2015. The book addresses illegal immigration, amnesty programs, and border security in the United States. [55]

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 04:26 PM

Thank you Michael.....that's very interesting, must try and get hold of a couple of her books.....From your post there are some of her views that I agree with and some that I don't, but I woulf have to read at least one book in it's entirety before passing my personal judgement......One thing is certain, she is extremely intelligent and extremely brave, as in one of her interviews she claims to have had hundreds of death threats.

I put a lot of store in your opinions Michael, what do you think of her....is she for real or a publicity seeker? Why has she not gone further in politics.....too hot for the Parties to handle?
If you would rather PM feel free.....A

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 06:33 PM

Ake, of course you like Coulter. You probably also like Sarah Palin, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney. Enjoy the empty stands and the vacant streets around the capitol as you watch the inauguration. And stop putting liberal in quotes, as if it is an insult or a make believe thing - it's real and we're proud to be the superior, altruistic individuals that we are.

The money is on Trump bailing before long, when the work gets hard and he finally figures out he can't wave a wand and have what he wants happen. He can't stalk his political opponents, and can't command that people be imprisoned on his say so. He can't just spend money or cut programs.

Trump will have a cabinet equal to him in every way; the perfect kakistocracy. But that still won't let him be the dictator he wants to be, so he'll quit pretty soon. Or the 25th amendment will get him. Section 4.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Elmore
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:49 PM

Two days until the Inauguration. Just like going to the dentist when I make an appointment months in advance. Not scared stiff until two days prior to the event. Barry tells us it's not the end of the world. Easy for him to say. I'm old enough to be his father, and not particularly healthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Elmore
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 09:04 PM

P.S. I'd rather watch candlepin bowling.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jan 17 - 09:33 PM

Michael Moore predicted Trump's victory too. The difference is he tried his level best to save America and the world from it happening.

I might watch it, to see how it compares with Triumph of the Will. I gather it's on at teatime, our time. But I might watch it later on BBC i-player, so I can fast forward when I prefer.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 02:34 AM

Ake, I am greatly afeared that you are a naive simpleton.

Nah- scratch that.

Coulter is one of the more complete amoral, vicious predatory persons in this country. The fact that I suspect that she dons the persona at will - it has been supremely profitable for her and I understand she can be quite pleasant in private- does not take away one iota of her shame. I can't imagine subjecting a child or a decent granny or gramps to her presence.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 02:53 AM

For a feminist Acme, you are very vitriolic about Miss Coulter.
I have never heard her say anything too terrible so far, she seems able to expose some of the flaws in the political system in a way that ordinary folks can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 03:07 AM

Thank you Ebbie, I can see you don't like Ann C, but I was more interested in why you don't like her, what are her horrific flaws, have you got examples.....or it simply because she is an extremely smart woman who does not share your "liberal" world view?

Getting back to the inauguration, seems to me that for the mass of people who voted for Mr Trump it wont be viable to travel to Washington. The Republican establishment hate him more than the Democrats, as do the Media "Luvvies" and I agree with Acme they will be working hard to get rid of him and return to the "no change" direction of travel.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 04:08 AM

Oh, she is quite clever: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 05:48 AM

Well, that's one statement in which there is a modicum of truth, but perhaps a bit below the belt given the tragic circumstances, but surely undeserving of the approbation heaped upon the lady?
It's certainly not helpful in the context of this discussion.


I was speaking more about her desire for change, her anti immigration stance and support for US industry.
I also agree with her that if the Democrats had the guts to back Mr Sanders rather than establishment favourite Clinton, Mr Trump would not be US president today.
Mr Sanders also spoke out against mass immigration AND globalisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 05:58 AM

So would you think people should be more tolerant of Ann Coulter's English clone Katie Hopkins, aken?

Of course it may be that the fact that a person who is disliked is female can lead to them they coming for extra venom because they are female, but I'd suspect that's counterbalanced by the existence of people who are likely to go more easy on them for the same reason, (That could of course arise either from a feminist standpoint, or a sexist one. These things get confusing at times.)

Both of them seem to have similar vile views.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: gillymor
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 08:16 AM

By gosh and golly, why wouldn't feminists cozy up to Coulter who has stated her belief many times over in public that women shouldn't have the right to vote. She is a gadfly with no moral compass who is merely out to make a buck by inflaming the basest instincts of the racist, misogynistic nitwits who buy her books.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: mkebenn
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 08:43 AM

Ebbie, if you challenge Ake to a duel, I'll second ya. In the tradition of Andy Jackson another butthole. Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 11:17 AM

Mr McGrath, there seems to be a huge difference in political knowledge between the two women...I have been very impressed by Ann Coulters depth of knowledge concerning the workings of the US political system......She is almost impossible to trip up, she will take on anyone usually two or three at a time, usually opposed by a baying "liberal" audience and a smarmy anchor like Maher taking cheap shots at her.

I think she's absolutely amazing and absolutely fearless

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 12:26 PM

Ignorant as usual. Feminist does not imply one supports only women, likes only women, etc. It implies an approach to life and business and politics that gives women equal pay and equal say. Ann Coulter does none of that. The fact that she can be ridiculed by throwing her own words back at her makes her an easy target, to be sure. She is of the ilk of Phyllis Schlafly, Michelle Buchanan, or Sarah Palin.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 01:36 PM

Ann Coulter is a right wing Conservative misogynist and a homophobe
Just what America - and the world - needs
Jim Carroll
Quote
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care—and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 01:42 PM

You certainly do pick your
HEROES Ake
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 03:42 PM

"Ebbie, if you challenge Ake to a duel, I'll second ya."

You must be joking!! they don't call her "the battleaxe " for nothing AND she keeps a stiletto in the woodshed :0)

and who the **** is Andy Jackson? The irony is lost on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 03:44 PM

I did my best to watch every moment of both Obama inaugurations - often with tears in my eyes. And I watched every Obama farewell event I could find in the last few weeks, with the same emotion. He's been a good President.
I've been spending a lot of time this week in the service waiting room of my car dealer - payback for my 15,000 mile tour of America. I switched the waiting room television off FoxNews as soon as I thought I could get away with it, and I've been watching the cabinet confirmation hearings. The discussions are interesting, and the nominees and the senators on both sides are all making very reasonable points - none seem to be the mindless evildoers that they're sometimes made out to be.
The discussion on Obamacare was particularly interesting yesterday. The Republicans seem to want a healthcare system that will fulfill all the best dreams of the Democrats. Obamacare tried too hard to satisfy the insurance companies and the Republicans. Now the Republicans are under pressure to come up with something that actually works, and perhaps now they can afford to ignore the political considerations. Maybe, just maybe, they can do their job and develop something that serves the people.
So, I'll wait and see.

There has been some controversy about the Girl Scouts participating in the inaugural parade, something they've done every inauguration for a century. The Girl Scouts generally support the more progressive causes, so there was hope they might boycott the inauguration. The Boy Scouts have been annoyingly conservative, which is one of the reasons why I left them after 30 years. But both scout organizations have participated in all inaugurations since their early years, so would it be right for them to single Trump out for boycott?

So, I dunno. Can't think I'll ever be happy having Trump as President, but I'm hoping maybe he'll surprise me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 04:03 PM

Very fair summation Joe.......stand bye for the brickbats.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 04:17 PM

Andrew Jackson.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 07:26 PM

Trump will not surprise you in that he will do things you didn't expect. It's what mavericks do.

Farcebook thinks Michael Flatley will perform at the inaugural ball

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: olddude
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 07:52 PM

Not me, I am sure I have somethingbbetterto do , like emptying the litter box

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 08:42 PM

I wish to announce that this year, I am refusing to perform at the Twump Inauguration.

When we elect Michelle Obama in 2020, that will be another matter....

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 17 - 09:33 PM

One good thing about living back here is that we don't have inaugurations for the Prime Minister. They just stand in the middle of the street, and give a short, generally totally insincere, speech.

Coronations are a hoot, but they don't come along too often.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 03:41 AM

"When we elect Michelle Obama in 2020, that will be another matter...."
As much as I shy away from dynasties, (remembering the Bush Family's attempts to establish one) what a beautiful thing to look forward to.
I doubt if Trump will ever surprises us other than to show further depths of his evil - if that were possible.
An openly dishonest businessman, a misogynist, a racist, sexual depravities which put Clinton/Lewisnski in the same class as 'Sound of Music', the Russian Government as backers, a record of involvement with the Russian Mafia and of having employed at least one killer in his businesses.....
What has happened to your country - pity Al Capone isn't still around!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: gillymor
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 06:45 AM

The event's organizers and Trump seem to be working at cross purposes. They're hoping for clear skies today while he's hoping for golden showers.

I would happily vote for Michelle. I thought her speech at the Democratic National Convention was the best one that came out of the 2016 campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 08:26 AM

Watching the reports coming in on Irish television, everybody seems to be talking about damage limitation
Great way to greet a new dawn.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 09:00 AM

For the Obama Inauguration my experience was remarkably similar to Joe's sentiment. The warmth of that freezing day was tropical.
The truth and hope of that day was beyond words.

Barak's Inauguration concert at the Lincoln Memorial was so poignant I felt it was the embodiment of achieving the MLK speech I attended when I was only twelve.

Look at who performed for Obama/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Are_One:_The_Obama_Inaugural_Celebration_at_the_Lincoln_Memorial


At the Trump Lincoln Memorial concert serial liar Trump could not restrain himself from lying when he said "Having an Inauguration concert at the Lincoln Memorial has never happened before".

Trump concert featured a country band 3doors down, a drummer, a fife and drum group, piano guys , John Voight and the Marine corp band.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 09:07 AM

"When we elect Michelle Obama in 2020, that will be another matter...."

THIS.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: gillymor
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 09:17 AM

The ACA was a bad deal at the outset but President O' had the wisdom and foresight to know that in this case it was better than no deal. He got the ball rolling on something that may evolve into Universal Health Care which is something every civilized nation should have. He invited and has continued to invite it's opponents to join in in crafting it, as it is a massive work in progress, but the GOP had no interest in being involved in something that could be perceived as a political victory for Democrats and fought it all the way.

In spite of all the opposition from the right the ACA is at an all time high in popularity, has lowered healthcare costs and has provided more people with healthcare than ever before. Thanks to this wider ranging coverage and the ACA's emphasis on prevention (rather than those expensive, middle of the night visits to the emergency room that Republicans favor) far fewer people are losing their homes, life savings, and even their lives due to catastrophic illnesses.

A lot of GOP legislators are calling on Trump to sign off on the ACA's immediate repeal and claiming that they'll come up with their own plan eventually. Yeah, right. If Trump stays true to his word (not holding my breath on that) and replaces it with "something better" what we'll have is Obamacare under a different name that the GOP will crow about after the fact.

President Obama is such a gracious and thoughtful man that I'm sure he would gladly live with a name change as long as people got their health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 09:40 AM

Barak has actually said he would be happy to call an improved ACA Trump care.

No smiles on the Mall so far. Just wary grins at the most.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 12:23 PM

"John Voight"
Of 'Mission Impossible' (1) fame!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 02:01 PM

This morning, I drove past a Trump inauguration party being held in the parking lot of a gun shop. I was wondering why the owner would sponsor such a party. Without the "Obama's gonna take away our guns!" nonsense driving idiots to his door, his business is probably going to drop through the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 05:09 PM

Fed friends went to the movies. We went to the botanical gardens but it was closed.

PS free marijuana at DuPont circle today.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 05:30 PM

Amazing piece of theatre.
As you know I'm a Scot, but the singing of the "Star spangled banner" almost brought a tear to my eyes....how could anyone fail to be moved?
The female singer was magnificent.....no jazzin' up just pure sweet emotion.....who she?

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 06:30 PM

A SCOTT ? I bet your brogue is as brilliant as your assumptions are not. I love the sound second only to Jamaican.

We make and sell Scott tissue right here in America. Very Patriotic.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 17 - 07:07 PM

My best treasure of the coverage were the still photographs I took of all the dignitaries prior to coming down steps inside the Capitol.
They were all unaware of a hidden HD camera, so they all had honest and telling expressions before they came down the 40 steps to the outdoor balcony and put on their public phony faces. Priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 01:14 AM

Well, I watched the swearing in and the inaugural speech. Hearing "America First" over and over again, scared me. With a slogan like that, you know that a lot of people age going to be excluded.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: meself
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 03:05 AM

Wasn't it fitting that Chump chose 'My Way' as the song for his and the wife's first dance - the most smarmy, smug, self-satisfied, self-aggrandizing, narcissistic set of lyrics ever set to schmaltz ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: meself
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 03:06 AM

"I did it Vlad's way!"

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 03:12 AM

Joe O, Trump didn't do the histrionics today but his words, and their message, were right up A.H.'s alley. Scary stuff.

Jackie Evancho was the 16 year old girl who sang the Star Spangled Banner. She didn't sing as well- especially in the first half of the song - as I've heard her sing before; I suspect she had a case of nerves.

I've heard her sing since she was 11 years old (on video) and she has always had a clear, pure voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 03:52 AM

""America First" over and over again, scared me"
Didn't watch it but is scared me too - "America uber alles" to a T.
Not proud to say that you were pipped at the post by half a year - the U.K. is well into "put Britain first" for that length of time and I suspect we'll hear th same thing from France shortly - echoes of the same marching song
"AMAZING PIECE of THEATRE"
Been done before Ake - nothing new under the sun.
It was aimed to inspire hate and fear and it obviously worked for one of our number
"Star Spangled Banner"
I'm sure "Deutschland über alles" and 'Horst-Wessel-Lied' had the seme effect back then.
What's happening to this planet scares the shit out of me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: gillymor
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 07:01 AM

The Nightmare begins. We need to keep a close watch on this bastard and his flying monkeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 07:06 AM

Where are the Stauffenbergs of this world when you neeed them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Mr Red
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 07:28 AM

Gaaaaaaawd.
Couldn't switch over fast enough. Every channel (TV & Radio) that I normally go to there was a special. My choice was bumped or on another channel!
One thang's fer sure, Twitler refused to pay the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 08:24 AM

Seven hundred anti-Trump demonstrations to take place across the world today, mainly organised by women.
The one in London, is already beginning to assemble in Grosvenor Square -
A reminder of what America now stands for in the eyes of its leader.
Jim Carroll

"I did try and fuck her. She was married. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look. I've gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab them by the pussy.
You can do anything."
- The President of The United States of America

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 12:08 PM

President Trump has been democratically elected ......get over it.

It is the only way the establishment could be broken. "The Establishment" consists of two corrupt Political Parties, a fawning lying media, Global corporations who leave redundant workers to rot...and worst of all a spoiled hate filled "liberal" elite who cannot stand the thought of their ideology being rejected all over the Western world.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: gillymor
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 01:44 PM

Herr Trump wasn't democratically elected. His opponent got more of the popular vote. In fact, he was elevated by a process that was designed to stifle democratic elections, the same process that gave us one of our worst presidents 16 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 02:00 PM

THE WOMEN HAVE IT RIGHT

DEMOCRATICLY DECIDED, OVER A MILLION WOMEN
are demonstrating in Denver, D.C., Boston, NYC, Seattle, Sydney,Chicago, LA ...

UK?

I have said when women rise up great evil falls down.

Here in DC metro is full of buses and Shopping Malls 24 miles away are being used for shuttling women downtown.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 02:05 PM

"America First'" translates as "Little America". So much for "Make America Great".

The girl singing "Star Spangled Banner" (which for some reason my keyboard came up with calling "The Star Spangled Dinner" till I corrected it) struggled hard, and didn't go for the terrible distortions they always seem to do at American sporting occasions but struggled hard with having to sing it in the badly selected key which is evidently officially required. But having the anthem rather strangled and somehow heartbroken was perhaps the right way to sing it for this tragic occasion,

God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: bobad
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 02:10 PM

From Facebook:

Robert Reich
3 hrs ·

I had breakfast recently with a friend who's a former Republican member of Congress. Here's what he said:

Him: Trump is no Republican. He's just a big fat ego.

Me: Then why didn't you speak out against him during the campaign?

Him: You kidding? I was surrounded by Trump voters. I'd have been shot.

Me: So what now? What are your former Republican colleagues going to do?

Him (smirking): They'll play along for a while.

Me: A while?

Him: They'll get as much as they want – tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare – and blame him. And he's such a fool he'll want to take credit for everything.

Me: And then what?

Him (laughing): They like Pence.

Me: What do you mean?

Him: Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind.

Me: So what?

Him: So the moment Trump does something really dumb – steps over the line – violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way … and you know he will ...

Me: They impeach him?

Him: You bet. They pull the trigger.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 03:01 PM

"President Trump has been democratically elected ......get over it."
I'll repeat this as often as it takes - so was Hitler
The fact that you refuse to respond to what he has said and what he stands for means you support him, leaning on a "democratic vote" nudged along with Russia's assistance mkes not one iota of difference to that fact
Trump is a phyco thug whose policies have already begun to divided America and threaten the rest of the world - that is what you are supporting - your refusal to respond makes that clear.
Trump has the makings of a fascist; you complained of my describing you thus, but that is what you appear to be supporting.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 03:32 PM

I listened to some of the marching women being interviewed, they were protesting a myth.
Not one had a coherent argument as to why the President was illegitimate......It was ideological nonsense, "he Discriminates against women"....apparently this is untrue, he employs thousands of women and promotes them in his organisations. "He discriminates against homosexuals", but not one interviewee could give one example.
"he is a racist who discriminates against Black people" again no proof of the allegations

It is all media fuelled hogswash.....the protests are about the rejection of an ideology, an ideology which is based on myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 03:52 PM

Just because "he employs women and promotes them" it does not follow he does not discriminate. There are lots of other aspects you would need to look at. Do they feel less respected than their male colleagues? What are the age demographics? Are they in equivalent roles? Are they promoted to an equivalent extent to men, or is the promotion distribution distinctive in some way?   I am not saying I know the answers to these questions, but I raise them to explain why discrimination could still be present.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: keberoxu
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 03:53 PM

oh, say, does that Star Spangled Dinner yet wave....

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: keberoxu
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 03:57 PM

...o'er the Land of the Fleeeeeeeeeeea
and the Home of the Plaaaaaaaaaaaague

that's what I have to show for living in New Mexico for a while

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 04:06 PM

Following on from Jim, there are really only two common ways dictators get into power. There is either a military coup, or they get elected. Either way they then start consolidating power. That is why the election is only the start of the democratic system: constant and ongoing criticism and examination is probably more important, if anything. So, no, "get over it" misses the point. We can see and accept the election and result of the vote. For all the caveats and doubts, we know the outcome. But that is not the end of of our role. Now, I am not claiming Trump is a dictator, but I am claiming election in itself does not stop people being dictators.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Stu
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 04:07 PM

Er, Ake. He likes to grab pussy.

Many of us don't like the direction towa fs dictatorship and nazism Brexit and Trump are taking our societies. We're making our point after you've dismissed and belittled us. You cannot exclude us. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 04:56 PM

Good catch bobad
Pence will be Caesar's Brutus, but even Christy would take a stab if he had been appointed VP.


The Park Service and Park police had their twitter accounts suspended then late restored by order of ........? as revenge and security for 2 re tweets regarding the typical counting of attendees at an inauguration.

It was said the attendance results and the retweets were not sympathetic to Trump.

Some believe a safety issue emerged on Mt Rainer due to the twitter shut off but now transmits its info on Facebook.

What this is all about may be trolling or it may be punishment for telling the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 05:19 PM

Stu...I know this may come as a shock to you, but lots of men and ex presidents are fascinated by small cats. They do all sorts of things to them. Its just human nature at work, especially if the women are willing participants, in search of money or celebrity, which was the scenario president Trump was alluding to.

In any case is talking about it ten years ago in what was supposed to be a private conversation an impeachable offence?   Is it really so important?.......Or is it simply an excuse to salve a stinging rejection?

My first introduction was at age 16, by a nice young lady who insisted on showing me where the little furry creature lived. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 05:26 PM

I take your point D, but these protester are not saying President Trump COULD be a racist, or homophobe ,or sexual molester, they are saying that he definitely IS these things and is not therefore a legitimate president of the USA.

They are not thinking clearly, or looking at the historical aspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 05:55 PM

people don't always express themselves well - I am guilty enough of that myself. What I think they mean is that all the information they have leads them to believe that to be the case. Or, if you like, they are thinking with the rules you might apply in a jury, rather than a scientific experiment. A lot of this information comes via the media, naturally, but not all of it. For example the decision to remove sections on civil rights and LGBT from the White House website were not taken by the media. People may differ on what the removal means, but if someone who is LGBT feels they will be treated less well under the new presidency you can see why they would think that. And the same applies to other sections of the community.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 06:04 PM

Too many "ifs" and "maybe's" to start a revolution over.
The election was legitimate...sure they can protest, but not burn cars, wreck houses and stone the police......and they should be sure what they are protesting about.
President Trump has only had a day in office, democracy says that he must be given a chance to put forward his policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 06:10 PM

"Homosexuals have had something pertaining to their rights removed from White House website"??? I have heard nothing about that.

But where were the hordes of protesters when the Democrat government was removing Jobs and the means of survival from the industrial belt of the US......patting themselves on the back because John could "marry" Bob?

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 06:12 PM

I am not one to condone violence, and certainly Trump has only been in power for a day. I am simply reserving the right to criticise him tomorrow, next week, next month, next year ... And I would have held the same position even if Hilary Clinton or Bernie or anyone else had won.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 06:59 PM

http://people.com/politics/trump-white-house-website-lgbt-climate-change-civil-rights-pages/


Ake you are more stable than Trump Sr.
but you are the caliber of a Bagdad Bob.

AFTER today with the global women marches in the millions.

after this unprecedented , historic , bigger than the Bosox celebration, Cubs parade and VE day combined, this demonstration has set the tone for the downfall of the Trump regime. He may be driven so crazy, an impeachment may not be necessary. He could be relieved by way of medical incapacity.

To show the never more crowed DC mall today Fox displayed a picture of an empty mall.

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/21/14336068/photos-womens-march-vs-trump-inauguration


btw I was at two of the marches in purple

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 07:36 PM

"The election was legitimate..."
The election was not legitimate - how can it have been if it was hacked into by a foreign power?
The candidate was now legitimate
Some years ago an American president lost his job for consentual sexual activity with an employee
This piece of work was recorded saying:
""I did try and fuck her. She was married. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look. I've gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab them by the pussy.
You can do anything."
- The President of The United States of America"
He regards women, half of the American population, as available meat
How can the election of such scum be legitimate, given the power he holds and the effect that power has to threaten the well-being of the rest of the world.
You support him without daring to discuss what he is and what he stands for.
You supported mass murderer Brievik in the same way when you announced that he was saying something that was worth listening to.
I worry for my family - you have no qualms about what the future holds for yours, obviously.
I have no brief for violence normally, but I seriously hope somebody has the balls to stop him one way or the other.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 07:58 PM

Ake has such a grasp of American politics, the nuances of Donald Trump that no one here gets, that I think he'd be a perfect fit to work in Trumps cabinet.

That is not a compliment.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 08:10 PM

Please take him. No compensation necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 17 - 09:24 PM

Anyway, even aken will admit that the man's dancing is dire. Savour this With other politicians they have to do faked dance routines to get a laught, Donald does it for real.
............
Actually it's not really the case that Hitler was democratically elected. He came to power through a democratic electoral process in which he got 28% of the vote, followed by some political manoevres with other parties which gave him the levers of power.
Whereas Trump came to power after an election in which he lost the vote, thanks to a deeply flawed constitutional anomaly called the Electoral College.

However "being hacked into by a foreign power" seems pretty irrelevant. In the words of the song "I'm certain that it happens all the time", and I have no doubt whatsoever that the USA is especially active in this way. Like the Russians it had never has many scruples about interfering in the politics of other countries, up to and including invading them. In the case of Russia, for example, they put major efforts into backing Yeltsin, with disastrous consequences, including the subsequent rise to power of Putin as a reaction against the failures of the Yeltsin years.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 02:27 AM

"Some years ago an American president lost his job for consentual sexual activity with an employee" - Jim Carroll

Really Jom? What was his name? Having another "Kitchner forced to resign" moment are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 03:19 AM

Mr McGrath, in comparison to mine President Trump's dancing is championship class.......my wife used to assure me that I had "two left feet". :0)

Other than the dancin' your post was typically measured and sensible.
Hope you and your family are well and remain so in 2017... A

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 03:38 AM

"You supported mass murderer Brievik in the same way when you announced that he was saying something that was worth listening to." - Jim Carroll

In Norway, in the political sense many thought that the concerns Breivik voiced were worth paying heed to - in any truly democratic society the concerns of all should at least be heard and listened to - It was Anders Behring Breivik's selected method of bringing his views to the attention of the general public in Norway that were universally abhorred and condemned. Anders Behring Breivik has not been locked up for his political views but for planting a bomb in a public place and committing mass murder.

"I have no brief for violence normally" - Jim Carroll

Hell as like, you worship the "Men of the gun" - your comment belies what you claim above:

Jim Carroll - 21 Jan 17 - 07:06 AM

"Where are the Stauffenbergs of this world when you neeed them"

Given the subject of your bile that comment of yours is both disgusting and contemptible.

Oh by the way from an earlier post of yours:

"President Trump has been democratically elected ......get over it."

I'll repeat this as often as it takes - so was Hitler"

In which case you are repeating a lie.

Donald Trump WAS elected as President of the United States of America in accordance with the democratic process that has elected every other President in the country's history.

Adolf Hitler WAS NEVER elected as German Chancellor he was elected as a plain, simple, member of the Reichstag in November 1932, having lost the Presidential election in the same year to Hindenburg. Hitler was THEN APPOINTED as Chancellor by Hindenburg reluctantly in January 1933. Yet another of Jim Carroll's dearly clung to MYTHs exploded.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 03:56 AM

The electoral process by which Trump was elected was constitutionally valid, but it was not democratic. It did not require that the winner received more votes than the loser.

Hitler of course wasn't elected Chancellor any more than anyone has ever been elected Prime Minister, because it wasn't an elected position. Actually the same is in a sense true of the the presidents. Strictly speaking they are not elected by the public, but appointed by the elected electoral college.
..........
I find it hard to believe what you say about your dancing, aken. Working up ladders you must have a fair command of your feet. I suspect that your dancing is highly idiosyncratic, which is a different thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 05:00 AM

In Germany in 1932 the Presidential election was a direct voting process which Hindenburg won as he got more votes than the other candidates.

The electoral college in the US grants various states votes. The convention goes that the votes of each state go to the Presidential candidate that won the popular vote in that particular state. It is therefore NOT an APPOINTMENT.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 05:07 AM

Hey UK
Anyone remember what happened when Thatcher tried one step too far? Marches, riots and Major.

History repeats itself, it has to, no-one is listening.

If we don't judge from a historical perspective we are doomed. It is called experience. And we have enough experience of Trump to judge him. What we say about the current president of the USA is extrapolation. Wracked with uncertainty, because we are describing the possible antics of a maverick. The latter alone should ring alarm bells.

But one thing we can be sure of, the Republican party want Twitler to fail so they can get their man in place.
Anyone who thinks differently hasn't thought enough. Or indifferent to the outcomes.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 05:24 AM

Given the subject of your bile that comment of yours is both disgusting and contemptible."
Why - would not the worlld have been a better place without Hitler?
There is little doubt - to me at least that, if he lives up to his promise, it would be a safer place without Trump - go count the number of times he has demanded the use of nuclear weapons in the current wars we in the West have helped to cause and plo
liferate.
I seem to remember you were happy to support Hisroshima and Nagasaki as necessary evils when the rest of us were describing them as vile and contemptible war crimes.
"Hitler"
Nit picking again
The Nazis won a 43% majority in the Reichstag in the 1933 election the nearest party to approach that majority was %18 - Hitler was elected to leadership via that majority - the people's choice by a far greater margin than Trump gained over his opponent.
Clinton was impeached for his sexual behavior yet America accepts a man who boasts of sexual assaults and encourages others to do the same
One of the things that makes me howl about Ake and his support of this man (and then there were two) is that, in the past, his diatribes aimed at homosexuality include that single sex marriage could destroy family values, yet he supports a man who boasts of taking sex wherever and whenever he chooses to.
That is the president these people are giving their support to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 07:07 AM

"Thatcher tried one step too far? "
Good analogy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 09:24 AM

Deliberately didn't watch that pathetic object.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: meself
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 11:55 AM

'"I'm certain that it happens all the time", and I have no doubt whatsoever that the USA is especially active in this way.'

I doubt any thinking person really believes the US has the moral high ground here - however, it's not really a moral issue, and I don't think it's being presented that way, for the most part. It's a matter of one gang protecting its turf from the incursions of the rival gang. We are under the protection of one gang in the same way that serfs were under the protection of the local baron - whatever he and his thugs are up to, you rely on them to keep the rival baron's thugs out of your village - and if you see the rival's thugs poking around, you run to the castle and demand that the baron teach them a lesson. (If you're of a progressive turn of mind, maybe you try to establish relationships with the rival's serfs, and encourage your baron to try just getting along with his evil half-brother ... ).

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 12:34 PM

Hang on Carroll how does the "impeachment of Bill Clinton 19th December 1998 - subsequently acquitted 12th February, 1999 - amount to your claim that "Some years ago an American president lost his job for consentual sexual activity with an employee" - Jim Carroll.

Indeed another "Kitchener forced to resign moment", yet another example of Jim Carroll "Made-up-shit". Because if I remember correctly Clinton's acquittal of both charges meant that he didn't lose his job at all and that he continued to be POTUS until GWB took over in January 2001

We will now get a whole load of spittle-flecked froth along with the usual attempts to distract and deflect away from this idiotic factual blunder and glaring error of Jim Carroll's

The world would most certainly have been a better place without Hitler. But here is where you and Madonna part company with most decent and sentient human beings on the planet:

"There is little doubt - to me at least that, if he lives up to his promise, it would be a safer place without Trump"

So Jim Carroll's solution is to call for someone to assassinate the newly inaugurated President with a bomb - "Where are the Stauffenbergs of this world when you neeed them" - Jim Carroll - 21 Jan 17 - 07:06 AM - Remember that do you Jim?

As far as I am aware Trump has never demanded the use of nuclear weapons. Time Magazine has reported that Trump has mentioned nuclear weapons in the following terms during the recent Presidential campaign:

1: "Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation" - a great number of people in the world share this view.

2: "I don't want to rule out anything" - very sensible approach, there is no point in having a nuclear deterrent and broadcasting, like Corbyn, that you would never ever use it.

3: "We have nuclear arsenals which are in very terrible shape" - No idea how accurate that statement is with regard to the US arsenal, certainly true of ours apparently and Putin has intimated that he is going to completely refurbish and modernise Russia's nuclear weapons and capability. Very sensible of Trump to state clearly that should that happen the USA should do the same - in an arms race with the USA the Russians could only lose.

4: "Maybe it's going to have to be time to change" - Well the nuclear world has changed quite a bit since Reagan and Gorbachev. As to proliferation many on this forum have cheered on and supported the acquisition or attempts to acquire nuclear weapons by Iran and by North Korea. GWB's efforts ended efforts on the part of Syria and Libya and shut down Pakistani Dr. A. Q. Khan's nuclear weapons proliferation network - So yes it is time for a change.

5: "I will have a military that's so strong and powerful, and so respected, we're not gonna have to nuke anybody" - Credible deterrence, nothing more nothing less, and perfectly sensible.

So far the man has said nothing and done nothing to warrant being blown up.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 01:24 PM

Go stuff yourself if you can't address people decently Teribus
Had enough of your behaviour - I thought you'd have had enough after your Osama Bin Laden fiasco.
"So Jim Carroll's solution is to call for someone to assassinate the newly inaugurated President with a bomb "
No I don't - I makde a joke and even if I believed in such nonsense I would not have been stupid enough to put it up publicly
Go get a sense of humour transplant
I do believe that Trump's hopefully brief reign will be a violent one - but not from his opponents
He is belligerently aggressive (probably went to the dsame charm school as you) and such belligerence provokes people.
The Blacks in the US already have a hard time with the police in certain areas - the present administration are unlikely to do anything about that.
As his victory was announced his supporters in the Klan announced that they planned a victory march - they have their own distinctive style in dealing with opponents - especially those of the "wrong" colour
The US citizens are due for a rough ride in the coming couple of years
Quote denials as much as you like - this is what he said about
NUCLEAR WEAPONS and ISIS
Now piss of and learn some manners you ill-bred' Trumpalike
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 02:35 PM

Oh Jim I address most people decently - you on the other hand I firmly believe to be a racist as well as being an intolerant Anglophobic bigot, I have got absolutely no respect for you at all.

If anyone wishes to check back through this thread and many others you will find that I post a great deal less than you or the members of your little "clique", I very, very, rarely initiate threads and on the threads I do contribute to my posts are normally posts challenging (rather successfully) idiotic points put forward by you, or Steve Shaw, or Raggy, or Dave the Gnome. I challenge your point of view I do not, and am not, necessarily supporting the person, party, organisation or idea that you are opposing and objecting to.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 02:36 PM

Oh Tezza, you're cherry picking here old chap. You quote trump as saying:

"Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation."

However your boy then contradicts himself (the quote is on the same page but somehow you missed it off) by tweeting:

"I will have a military that's so strong and powerful, and so respected, we're not gonna have to nuke anybody"

He later tweets:

America must.... "greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes""


In an interview on US TV, a journalist has this exchange with Trump:

"MATTHEWS: Where would we drop — where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East?

TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain.
Somebody hits us within ISIS — you wouldn`t fight back with a nuke?
…
MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They`re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?"

And so on it goes. Clips here.

The trouble is Tezza, you've got your work cut out defending the likes of Trump because the man is a total contrarian gobshite. He's a liar, and now he's making his staff lie on his behalf. Take some advice, calm down and don't try to defend this pack of liars (Trump et al, Farage, Gove, BoJo, May), because you're going to do yourself a mischief trying to justify their "alternative truths".

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 02:53 PM

Carroll's Link:

"While Real News Right Now does not contain a disclaimer identifying IT AS A FAKE NEWS WEB SITE

Now why does it not surprise me that Jim "Made-up-Shit" Carroll would believe every single word from such a source.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 03:02 PM

Stu read the following carefully:

"If anyone wishes to check back through this thread and many others you will find that I post a great deal less than you or the members of your little "clique", I very, very, rarely initiate threads and on the threads I do contribute to my posts are normally posts challenging (rather successfully) idiotic points put forward by you, or Steve Shaw, or Raggy, or Dave the Gnome. I challenge your point of view I do not, and am not, necessarily supporting the person, party, organisation or idea that you are opposing and objecting to.

Particularly that last sentence.

The big difference between us would seem to me you will condemn and act of supposition and things that you think MIGHT happen but HAVEN'T. I on the other hand will only do so if an offence has been committed. Judge on what men do not on what men say.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 03:30 PM

I'm not sure that penultimate sentence makes any sense, but I get your gist. I am judging Trump on what he does (he lies), however I remain to be convinced you don't support him.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 03:51 PM

"... on the threads I do contribute to my posts are normally posts challenging (rather successfully) idiotic points put forward by you, or Steve Shaw, or Raggy, or Dave the Gnome. I challenge your point of view I do not, and am not, necessarily supporting the person, party, organisation or idea that you are opposing and objecting to."

But you're not challenging points. All the above-mentioned, and several more besides, get called all manner of names, subjected to your sarcasm or are insulted by you well before you get round to "challenging our points." By the time you actually get round to "challenging our points" you've pissed us off via your self-righteous aggression, so why would we take notice? The "rather successful' challenges of yours are "rather successful" only your head. You have absolutely no concept of working for good outcomes. Just like Keith, you're happy only when you think you've managed to put people down. You see the name of person at the head of a post and immediately go into red-mist mode if it happens to be any of your above-named. Everybody here is right some of the time, wrong some of the time and in sime cases too aggressive some of the time. If you can't see that there's something wrong with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 03:53 PM

Two typos there minimum. This bloody mini-iPad does my brain in.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 04:18 PM

What is the good outcome Shaw?

We have some clown on this forum stating that President Bill Clinton was impeached and lost his job. I pointed out that no such thing occurred. He WAS impeached and he was ACQUITTED and served out his full second term as POTUS.

Don't know about you Shaw but I would say that that was an ill-informed point made that was successfully challenged wouldn't you? Or do you believe that Clinton lost his job?

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 05:58 PM

Maybe one problem is that you can never say 'someone on this forum'. You always go straight to 'some clown on this forum'.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 06:06 PM

I don't give a monkey's bloody mickey, Bill.* It really doesn't matter one tenth as much as you seem to think. What's more, it's nothing to do with me, I haven't been following (who's to blame me?) and I'd rather hack off my own gonads with a rusty machete than discuss it with you. What matters is that anyone you regard as your "adversary" can never say a bloody thing, right or wrong, without you going all sarky and aggressive. Therefore, sane persons hereabouts take a big step back (eventually) from your arrogance and that gives you, unfortunately for your already-twisted ego, the false impression that you're "on top." Have you not realised that getting only the likes of Iains, Stanron, akenaton and Keith on board with you should worry you? As I said, if you really can't get your head round these things there must be something wrong with you.

*Do feel free to call me "Steve," by the way, if you can bring yourself to do it. I can assure you that even my worst enemies manage that.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: gillymor
Date: 22 Jan 17 - 09:08 PM

2 days in and they're already lying through their teeth.

Click here

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 01:18 AM

DMcG, about most who post here, without naming names, I would generally say - "someone on this forum" - unfortunately for the "usual suspects" and Jim Carroll in particular, they have come out with such a constant stream of idiotic, clichéd, stereotypical twaddle that they fully deserve to be referred to generally, without specifically naming names as - "some clown on this forum".

For years now this group has taken great delight in "mobbing" and bullying one particular member of this forum and they have viewed it as great sport. Like all bullies they can dish it out but squeal like stuck pigs when they have to sup their own medicine.

Anyone walking this planet who thinks and writes such complete and utter shite as - "Some years ago an American president lost his job for consensual sexual activity with an employee" - and expect it to be taken seriously should expect to be called out for being the complete and utter idiot that they undoubtedly are.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 01:24 AM

A whole two days gillymor!! As politicians go they're getting off to a slow start. Tell me gillymor, is Guantanamo still open?

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 01:34 AM

The fact that people might have some opinions in common is an inadequate reason for linking them together as a "group" or still less as a "clique".

People on the mudcat post as individuals. They are likely to agree with specific others on some issues, and yet disagree on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 03:45 AM

MGOH, I can cut'n'paste whole sections of threads where it is perfectly obvious that our "usual suspects" are taking great delight in operating as a pack. For years now they have operated as such and have deliberately targeted one particular member of this forum in a most outrageous and distasteful manner, while others on this forum, yourself included, stood by and did absolutely nothing. They have constantly, deliberately and rather obtusely misrepresented what he has said, they have wilfully and selectively misquoted him and attributed the words and opinions of others to him.

Their behaviour has been a disgrace and they rightly deserve to be taken on by those willing to do so. You do not do that as their views, particularly their political views, align largely with your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Mr Red
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 03:56 AM

Maybe one problem is that you can never say 'someone on this forum'. You always go straight to 'some clown on this forum'.

Classic case of "Address the issue, not the person". I might add - even when THEY don't, YOU should.

But hey! who is bothering to listen to the voice of reason?

The inauguration has finished. New issues, new thread. Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 04:10 AM

Mr McGrath, these people(you know who they are), never let facts, or even common sense, get in the way of their ideology.

The only reason they are backing off somewhat.....is Teribus and his well sourced responses. Even they, don't like to be made to look foolish ALL the time.

If they were given free rein, this forum would degenerate into a nest of bullies in which only one social or political view would be acceptable.
I believe you to be a Christian, do you welcome the jibes and insults routinely used by these people.......and they have the audacity to call themselves liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 04:49 AM

"Fake News" seems to be the latest get-out-of-jail card regarding what what Trump has actually said he will do
This is what he said - rather a lot of text, so Teribus will have to get someone to read it for him
Even before the election campaign and the advent of "Fake News" Trump has suggested that nuclear weapons shouuld be used to sort out the Middle East
Jim Carroll

Donald Trump's nuclear weapons stance comes under fire from national security expert

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event at Briar Woods High School
PHOTO: Donald Trump reportedly asked 'why can't we use' nuclear weapons. (AFP: Molly Riley)
RELATED STORY: Trump 'scares the hell out of me', New York police chief says: 'This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes': Clinton blasts Trump RELATED STORY: Donald Trump's nuclear falloutRELATED STORY: Trump's nuclear policy 'catastrophic', White House says
A national security expert and former nuclear weapons officer has attacked Donald Trump's position on nuclear weapons and deterrence, saying the presidential candidate's reported comments are "so damn dangerous".
Mr Trump had asked a foreign-policy expert "why can't we use" nuclear weapons, according to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who said he spoke to the expert.
"I'll be very careful here. Several months ago, a foreign policy expert, on the international level, went to advise Donald Trump, and three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons," Scarborough said on his program Morning Joe.
"Three times he asked. At one point, 'If we have them, why can't we use them?'" Scarborough continued.
John Noonan, who has advised both Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney on national security, responded to this claim with 20 tweets criticising the Republican nominee's understanding of global politics and the role of nuclear weapons.
"The whole idea behind nuclear deterrence is that you don't use the damn things," he wrote, after mentioning his own training and experience in ICBM facilities.
"The nuke triad, which Trump doesn't have a clue about, has been the single greatest contributor to global peace for decades."
While saying that he does not know if Scarborough's report is true, he said Mr Trump "would be undoing six decades of proven deterrence theory" and would be "so damn dangerous".
Mr Noonan is a director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, which says the United States is "the world's indispensable nation" and rejects isolationist policies.
Previous nuclear comments widely attacked
This is not the first time Mr Trump has been criticised for comments he has made about nuclear weapons.
Towards the end of May, Mr Trump said that if the Islamic State group was to attack the US, he might return fire with a nuke — and that Japan and South Korea should be able to do the same to North Korea.
In response, the White House described his policy as "catastrophic".
"I'm afraid this kind of talk in an election is bluntly irresponsible and is detrimental to our and all of our allies' security posture," US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said.
US deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes said: "It would be catastrophic for the United States to shift its position and indicate that we somehow support the proliferation of nuclear weapons."
President Barack Obama was equally blunt: "The person that made the statements doesn't know much about foreign policy, or nuclear policy or the Korean peninsula or the world generally," he said.
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton tore into Mr Trump, calling him "temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility."
"This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes," she said.
On the other hand, North Korea, which has been conducting missile tests increasingly close to Japan, has endorsed Mr Trump for president, calling him "wise".
The endorsement appeared on the North Korean propaganda website DPRK Today after Mr Trump said he would seek to talk to regime leader Kim Jon-un, and that he might withdraw US troops from South Korea if Seoul does not pay more money to the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 05:43 AM

There ya go. North Korea endorses Trump. Teribus endorses Keith.

By their fruits...

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 06:47 AM

Nice summing up of "Fake News', from inauguration attendance to penis size - a sign of things to come - hopefully
Jim Carroll

RUNNING WAR WITH THE MEDIA TO BE FOUGHT WITH 'ALTERNATIVE FACTS'
Simon Carswell Analysis
Bizarre turn on first day of presidency as press secretary Lambastes press
He is continuing as he cam¬paigned and started his presidency as he means to go on.
Donald Trump did not just drag the bitterness of the election into his angry cam¬paign speech that masquerad¬ed as an inaugural address. He has extended his "war" on the media into his presidency too.
For a thin-skinned man whose fragile ego needs stroking with flattery, size matters. Poll numbers, the turnout at rallies and even the size of his penis when it was once mocked are important measures to affirm his stand¬ing.
Put simply, the US president likes to be liked and lashes out when it is suggested that he is not.
If Friday's inaugural address was about trashing the Washington establishment for overlooking the American people, his first full day in office on Saturday was dominated by a strange assault on the media.
The media did not figure in the president's l5-minute address at the US Capitol on Friday. However, reporters were the target of his rambling 15-minute speech at the CIA's headquarters in Langley, his first official visit as the 45th president, the following day.
The Republican falsely accused the media of inventing a "feud" with the US intelli¬gence community and for understating (again falsely) the size of the crowd that attended his inauguration. Remember, size matters.

'DISHONEST HUMAN BEINGS'
"I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth," he said, ripping the fourth estate for suggesting that he did not see eye to eye with the intelligence community-
Mostly, though, he bragged - about his popularity among the military, his youthful energy, his cabinet picks, his intelligence - "Trust me, I'm like a smart person" - and the size of his inauguration audience.
Former CIA director John Brennan, in response, issued another stinging put-down in their non-feud. Trump "should be ashamed of himself," he said, for his "despicable" and "self-aggrandising" comments in front of Langley's sacred memorial wall of 117 stars, each representing an unnamed agent killed in the line of duty.
The first full day of the Trump presidency turned even more bizarre when his press secretary Sean Spicer later called the media to a press briefing, his first at the White House, to yell at them for their "false reporting" that the attendance at Barack Obama's first inauguration in 2009 surpassed the crowd at Trump's on Friday.
"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," he declared. This was blatantly untrue and photos proved it, undermining Spicer's credibili¬ty at the start of the administra¬tion.
"This is called a statement you're told to make by the president. And you know the president is watching," Ari Fleischer, one-time presidential press secretary to George W Bush, tweeted.

CHOOSING FACTS
While the issue of crowd size was moot, the telling of the lie marked a self-destructive moment for the Trump White House. It signalled that the new president's long-running penchant for choosing his own facts will continue in office.
More ominously, Trump's press secretary appeared to threaten to circumvent the media, warning reporters that the president "will take his message directly to the Ameri¬can people". This follows a proposal recently floated that the administration may move the White House press corps out of the White House.
Trump's chief of staff, Reince Priebus, offered a stronger warning yesterday, attributing the reports on crowd size to "an obsession by the media to de-legitimise this president" and vowing to "fight back".
Kellyanne Conway, one of Trump's top aides, said that Spicer was offering "alternative facts", entering a chilling new Trumpian description for falsehoods the White House is willing to peddle from the outset.
The multi-pronged attack from the administration illustrated that Trump has every intention of escalating his long-running "war" with the "dishonest media" to protect his "alternative facts".
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic senator and one-time member of Richard Nixon's staff, famously said that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
Among the baggage Trump has brought to the White House is his own "truth" - a horrifying prospect, particular¬ly when he has to make state¬ments about matters far more important than crowd size.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 06:49 AM

Sorry - above from this morning's Irish Times - a neutral real news paper printing real news in real paper-shops
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: gillymor
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 07:30 AM

If Herr Trump reacts to something as trivial as the media honestly reporting on the piddling size of his inauguration crowd like he did just imagine when something important comes along. Anyone who's been even half-awake in this country for the last few decades knows he is a lying, unprincipled goon. I wonder when, or if, the Trump apologists here are going to hip the fact. "Alternative Facts", straight out of Orwell.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 07:39 AM

Real News Right Now

Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) is an independent online media outlet. MBFC News is dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.
MBFC News' aim is to inspire action and a rejection of overtly biased media. We want to return to an era of straight forward news reporting.

MBFC News lists Real News Right Now under SATIRE NOT News at all Carroll merely entertainment. Of course Jim Carroll would not know the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 08:15 AM

So we can take it that you accept that Trum's approach to nuclear weapons is as described.
We've seen your approach to factual news with your nonsensical claims that the world got it wrong about Bin Laden's business history - make it up as it suits.
I'm sure Trump could find you a job on his team
"on the piddling size of his inauguration"
Or is penis - don't forget where he thinks from
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 08:35 AM

"Mr Trump had asked a foreign-policy expert "why can't we use" nuclear weapons, according to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who said he spoke to the expert.
"I'll be very careful here. Several months ago, a foreign policy expert, on the international level, went to advise Donald Trump, and three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons," Scarborough said on his program Morning Joe.
"Three times he asked. At one point, 'If we have them, why can't we use them?'" Scarborough continued."

Not so much interested in what Mr Joe Scarborough thinks about this, the nuance and weighting Mr. Joe Scarborough tries to infer. I would be more interested in the full context of the conversation between Trump and the foreign-policy expert from the expert himself.

"The whole idea behind nuclear deterrence is that you don't use the damn things,"

Not strictly the full story that is it. Between two adversaries who both have nuclear weapons the deterrence factor comes in the form of firm belief that either side will have no qualms about using them, add to that equation "Nuke Triad" capability on both sides and the reality of Mutually Assured Destruction - then you have a deterrent.

"Towards the end of May, Mr Trump said that if the Islamic State group was to attack the US, he might return fire with a nuke"

Ah so no original thought there then:

"On 19 January 2006, Chirac said that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism."

France's nuclear strike force - Force de Frappe - Like that of the US Military id "nuke triad" capable. Before leaving office as Iran's nuclear weapons programme became undeniable and they reported that they now had weapons capable of hitting any target in Europe, Chirac had France's SSBNs weapons load reconfigured so that four of the missile tubes were loaded with tactical warheads instead of full multiple individually targeted warheads.

Early days of the Cold War, NATO it was made clear to the Soviets and Warsaw Pact forces in Europe that any use by them of Chemical or Biological weapons would result in immediate use by NATO of tactical nuclear weapons. Reagan reaffirmed this strategy, in both cases the U.S.S.R. considered the threat credible and no such attack was ever contemplated. The Russians passed this on to Saddam Hussein in 1990 which is why Saddam did not use the Chemical Weapons he undoubtedly did have against Coalition forces in 1991.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 08:41 AM

So there we have it - not only is it true that Trump supports the use of nuclear weapons, but so does his Mudcat spokesman here
Th press wasn't lying
Sorted
We can move on to the inauguration attendance and the size of Donald's penis
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 08:50 AM

Ah so because I draw your attention to fallacies and weakness in the articles that you put up I now become Trump's spokesman on Mudcat?

Got a date for when Clinton was forced to resign Carroll? Or was that Kitchener? Perhaps you can tell us what Television drama you saw it on. You are the last person to complain about, or take people to task over telling lies, you, Jim "Made-up-Shit" Carroll have after all told so many of your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 09:49 AM

Thread parasites...

So are you guys gonna watch the inauguration?

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 17 - 10:29 AM

"So are you guys gonna watch the inauguration?"
Bit late Jeri - butt only if he offers to show us his penis
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Mr Red
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 03:41 AM

Sorry - above from this morning's Irish Times - a neutral real news paper printing real news in real paper-shops

Call me a cynic, but I ain't never read a newspaper that didn't have an agenda. They would call it being objective, but in the jargon of the day it is branding. Or as I would have it: pandering to their audience - see below.

As one noted skeptic once described confirmation bias/motivated reasoning in plainer English: "People do not scrutinise, that which they are glad to hear".

Anyone who disagrees .................... invent your own reasoning, you will anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 06:36 AM

"but I ain't never read a newspaper that didn't have an agenda."
True - to a point, but a Proportional Representation System tends to make a difference to which audience they are pandering to
Tried a lot of different papers in my time, but the I.T. is the most neutral one I have come across, apart from the Indi, which I find somewhat dull and pedantic
All newspapers can only be a rough guide anyway - some more reliable than others
My quote was a tongue-in-cheek one from Keith's "historians".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Inauguration--To Watch or Not to Watch??
From: meself
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 10:39 AM

I have to take back what I said in my first post to this thread - I understand now the implications of the 'to watch or not to watch' business, which I clearly didn't beforehand. One more bizarre aspect of this bizarre election is that the statistics of TV viewing are taken as indication of the level of support for the incoming president. What can you say ... (walks away shaking head) ....