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

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) ....

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:35 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 - 08:15 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:35 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.