If Trump's First Full Day As President Is A Sign Of The Next 4 Years, America's Going To Be OK

Submitted by: fancylad 3 months ago News & Politics

Trump spoke for 15 minutes at the CIA Memorial Wall at CIA HQ in Virginia for agents killed in the line of duty yesterday. Instead of focusing on why he was there -- the dead CIA agents -- he bragged about how many times he's been on Time magazine's cover, and attempted to convince everyone that his inauguration was attended by more people than Obama's inauguration. This was a blatant lie, but instead of staying on task and memorializing dead agents, he used his time to try to convince you that his dick is bigger than Obama's dick.

His speech confirmed what we all know: The only thing that matters to Trump is size, because that's how people with inferiority complexes and daddy-issues measure success. We're dealing with child-like adult who whines, and throws a tantrum, then gets his big brother (in this case, press secretary/spin doctor Sean Spicer) to fight his battle for him when everyone said, "There was twice as many people at Barry's party than yours, Donald."

This is what the new US President decided to focus on, which begs the question, "Why is Trump in a dick-swinging contest at a memorial for deceased CIA agents?

Later in the day, he got Spicer to fight his battle. Spicer yelled at the press in the briefing room later in the day, accusing them of printing "inaccurate numbers involving crowd size" because "this was the largest audience to ever witness the inauguration period both in person and around the globe." Another lie.



Trump's people don't call them lies though, they call them "alternative facts." That's the phrase Trump's advisor, KellyAnne Conway coined this morning on "Meet The Press" when she defended Spicer's desperate attempt to convince us that Trump's crowd was bigger, because to Trump, success is measured by size.


But the women of the world (not just the US, all over the world) came out in droves with their teeth showing and arms flexed -- with no reported incidents of violence or vandalism. The numbers also show that there were an estimated 470,000 women (and some men) at the National Mall -- three times more than the estimated 160,000 at Trump's inauguration. The Women's March reassured anyone who cares about equality and truth that the country will be OK for the next four years.
There are 106 comments:
Male 23
Good post fancylad.  It was amazing that Trump wanted to litigate the dispute on the size of the crowd since that is what matters most to Americans.  Obama was the 1st black President and that alone was going to draw the biggest crowd in inauguration history, especially in such a highly black populated area.  Nothing to even question there, unless you have to win everything.  The real issue is Trump's continuing attack on the 1st Amendment and the freedom of the press.  If any control on guns is an attack on the hallowed 2nd Amendment, why doesn't the 1st Amendment deserve the same consideration.  Maybe Trump will weigh in as his Canadian alias "5cats", whose skin seems to be just as thin as Trump's
1
Reply
Male 6,437
This should be upsetting across the isle.  If you don't find the theory of "alternative facts" as troubling, what about gestapo style politics.  Whatever the President says IS, facts be damned.  You better be careful how close you tread here.  This is a dangerous precedence you are supporting if you support this style of misinformation.
2
Reply
Male 129
The main problem with this is that everyone is fixating on Trump. The Democrats had their asses handed to them at every level not just the presidential. They had better start figuring out why or it will happen again in two years. Most people that I know that voted for Trump don't really believe him but they were getting shit on from the Dem's so why not vote for someone else.
1
Reply
Male 490
taxidriver The problem with your statement is that the Dems havent been in control for the last 6 years, Republicans have.  So if your republican friends were getting shit on, they were shitting on themselves.   see Tubgirl
0
Reply
Male 1,213
"And the wall behind me is very very special. We’ve been touring for quite a while. And I’ll tell you what: twenty … nine? I can’t believe it.. No. Twenty eight. We’ve got to reduce it. That’s amazing. And we really appreciate it what you ‘ve done in terms of showing us something very special. And your whole group. These are really special, amazing people. Very. very few people could do the job you people do." That's a direct quote from the Presidents speech to the CIA yesterday. So Admittedly a very short statement about the Memorial but still a statement. And he didn't start really talking about the press until the last of the speech and talked mostly about how he respected the new head and the CIA in general. I guess you need to read a transcript so you can see just exactly what he said "thezigrat".
2
Reply
Male 37,277
IAB keeps posting the lies about trump, without even bothering to check if they are fakes or not.
Exaggerations based on hate. Lambasting Trump for things Obama did on a daily basis, but it was A-ok for him!
The Mall was packed:
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

Unless you think CNN is lying about it for Trump now? After 16 months of being "all-in" for Hillary? Naw, facts don't matter to the programmed hate the average IAB Liberal is told to feel.
-2
Reply
Male 20,061
5cats You honestly can't think this limited panoramic photo proves anything.
0
Reply
Male 37,277
fancylad It proves that this "pre-start" picture is NOT an accurate representation of the TOTAL number who attended. Absolutely.

I (well, CNN does) have a picture with more people than that one in the split-image, so which is more likely to be correct? Hint: not the one taken before the crowd had fully gathered, ok? Obviously if the larger crowd picture exists? THAT must be more accurate than the smaller crowd one. Duh!

When people were raging about "Trump Lied! People Died Stayed Home! there was NO official numbers, it was also his OPINION not a PHD Thesis... having an incorrect opinion is not the same a telling a lie... not until the FACTS are know, which they were not at the time in question.

Obviously Obama's historic inauguration had a larger attendance, so WHY the desperate need to offer FAKE evidence of this? Hummm? Why not stick with the facts and the truth?
-1
Reply
Male 4,392
5cats You can't estimate crowd size by looking out onto them from roughly the same level, the gaps get filled in by the rows behind them and the rows behind them until all rows look full. You have to look at them from above (like high up in the Washington Monument) to see how many actual people are in the crowd. 

If you are too stupid to understand this, setup 5 dominoes spaced out and 5 more behind those spaced out in different ways, and another row and another until you have 10 rows of five. Now look at them from a low angel. It will look like full rows of dominoes.
2
Reply
Male 37,277
markust123 If you are too stupid to post an actual rebuttal or refutation? But have to make up childish tales that have not one thing to do with the facts as shown? (45 minutes before is not the same as total attendance) (or that this one image is not the only way to estimate, there are others) Then how about growing up a bit?
Your claim that... just what are you saying? That people's heads have different numbers if you change the camera angles? no they fucking don't! Your 'example' doesn't change the fact that I can count the exact same fucking number of dominoes in either camera angle.
I'd say the height of the camera in the image I provided clearly shows where there are people and where there are gaps. So no, you are once again full of shit. 
Sorry but you got rude first dude, and you honestly seem to not pay attention unless I swear at you... whatever dude, that's your problem not mine. It doesn't change the facts.
-4
Reply
Male 37,277
markust123 I'm pointing out the FACT that a picture take 45 minutes before the start is NOT an indication of how many people saw the inauguration. 
Wasn't it YOU who said he went to Obama's and they had shut the gate 45 minutes before it started because it was over-filled already? Someone here said it happened to their friend, if not you then sorry.
Wouldn't 'better crowd management' cause it to be NOT packed far too early this time? Rather then "no one attended"?
Why not verify facts before claiming others are wrong?
Why not post actual pictures of things and not fakes?
Why not tell the truth? 
-4
Reply
Male 4,392
5cats It's funny to watch you spin. The more I prove you wrong the more outrageous you get. I explained this as if I was talking to a child and you still pretend that you can't understand.

Here is Jim Berge from routers presenting a picture from a photographer he assigned to be at the top of the Washington Monument. It was taken at 12:01. It's pretty much the same empty white space as the picture taken at 11:15. In fact in a lot of cases this IS the picture people are lying and saying was taken at 11:15. Here's one from within the crowd. You can see Trump giving his speech on the monitors and there is lots and lots of white space this close (next to the round Hirshhorn Museum). So much empty space, like what is between your ears.
2
Reply
Male 37,277
markust123 Again, you are talking about something else now. Changing the subject. Your 'domino theory' is just plain wrong. Plainly so, anyone can see this except you apparently. I successfully disputed it, you offered nothing else to support it, end of subject. 
I'm right (on that topic) and you are not. Eat it.

You want to talk about other topics? Be my guest. Once you admit you were mistaken.
-3
Reply
Male 4,392
5cats Actually the domino example is correct and can be easily reproduced in your house using most any objects. The problem isn't with my example it's with your brain - you just can't ever admit you are wrong. It's one of your biggest weaknesses.

Here is an extreamly short article that explains the illusion of looking at a crowd from a low angle.
0
Reply
Male 4,994
 Today the "Thing in Orange" tweeted " Had a great meeting at CIA Headquarters yesterday, packed house, paid great respect to Wall, long standing ovations, amazing people. WIN!"  OUTRIGHT BS. I watched the whole address live. Although he made the speech standing in front of the memorial wall, he made no reference to its significance or the sacrafices the agents made to whom it was dedicated. Most of his speech was dedicated to belittling the press and calling them lairs. It was so bad the Director of the CIA described it as insulting.

0
Reply
Male 1,255
thezigrat The latest greatest name I've heard for him is "rape cheetoh."
-1
Reply
Male 301
As I have pointed out, and will continue to point out, we don't always get the politicians we want, but we always get the politicians we deserve.

If you don't like the way the election is going, don't moan about it, try to fix it.  If anyone is upset with the results, the first person you need to talk to is yourself.

Just remember that you have another chance in four years time, to "improve" the outcome.

If you don't take your voting seriously, someone else will do it for you.
6
Reply
Male 2,111
punko You are aware, I assume, that some of us take our voting responsibility very seriously and did not vote for Trump? Why do I "deserve" Trump?
0
Reply
Male 4,029
squrlz4ever Why did I deserve Obama for 8 years when I didn't vote for him? The reason is because he won two elections, that's why. What Punko is talking about is the country and voters in general. The country and voters in general put Trump in power, just as they did Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. In doing so, the country deserves the policies and politicans that it has so-far reaped. I believe the reason you're having trouble understanding him is because your taking his comment out of context and applying it to you individually. He does mention that "If anyone is upset with the results, the first person you need to talk to is yourself." But that doesn't mean that he is saying you personally deserve it, rather I believe he is saying that if you want to change the current political climate then you should take it personally upon yourself to make the difference.
2
Reply
Male 2,111
richanddead Actually, what Punko's done is to borrow and misapply Joseph de Maistre's observation that, Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite (roughly, Every nation gets the government it deserves). My complaint is that Punko's trying to apply the idea on an individual basis.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
squrlz4ever Maybe Punko was attempting to quote Maistre and ended up misquoting and misapplying his views, but IMHO he used a fairly old and commonly used political adage to say exactly what he meant. Judging by the fact that it seems to be the most popular comment on this post, I'd venture to say most people seem to not only understand what he was saying but also seem to agree with him.
0
Reply
Male 2,111
richanddead You're making a textbook argumentum ad populum.

The focus of Punko's comment is clearly on chastising the individual, not the nation. Not only does he write that "the first person you need to talk to is yourself," he ends with "If you don't take your voting seriously, someone else will do it for you."

You think that's directed not at the individual, but the nation? What, you think Punko believes Canada's going to come in and vote for us if we don't take our voting seriously?

The entire tenor of the post is, "Hey, you complainers out there who aren't happy with President Trump--you didn't take your voting responsibility seriously and have no one but yourselves to blame." Sorry, Diedrich (and Punko), but that's nonsense.

Do nations get the governments they deserve? I suppose so; at least I can see the logic of the idea. Do individuals get the governments they deserve? Of course not. You're going to tell the Jews of wartime Norway that they deserved to be deported under Quisling?

It comes down to this: While nations get the governments they deserve, individuals get the governments--for better or worse--imposed on them by their nations. 
0
Reply
Male 4,029
squrlz4ever Not quite, argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that the proposition is true because many or most people believe it. Yet if you notice I never said the proposition was conclusively true, I said "IMHO" and "I'd venture to say" in essence "I'll take the risk in saying my opinion." I even started out my comment noting the possibility of your conclusion being possible, albeit highly improbable. So no I don't believe I made any fallacious argument, I merely noted some supporting evidence to my belief.

I also don't believe Punko believes Canada's going to come in and vote for us if we don't take our voting seriously. I believe he is noting the very real issue that despite all the vitriol, protests, and anger at our political leaders going on in our country, we still have a relatively low voter turn out when compared with other industrialized countries. I believe he is saying that if people don't like the way the elections have been going, then more of us should try to fix the problems instead of just whining about what we don't like.

Again, I don't agree with your depiction of the tenor of his post, I think you've taken what he wrote out of context. I believe tenor of what he is saying is "don't simply gripe about things you don't like, try to find ways to fix them."
0
Reply
Male 2,111
richanddead You're projecting your thoughts onto the text. If Punko meant to write "Despite all the vitriol, protests, and anger at our political leaders going on in our country, we still have a relatively low voter turnout," why didn't he?

I responded to the words he wrote, not the thoughts in your head. Two of his five sentences are clearly written as a rebuke directed to those individuals who aren't happy with the election outcome. That's a simple fact.

If he erred in expressing himself, perhaps you should allow him to make the clarification instead of trying now to rewrite his text for him.

As far as argumentum ad populum goes, you're now claiming you weren't suggesting that your interpretation was true based on upvotes? Split hairs much?
-3
Reply
Male 301
squrlz4ever and richanddead

If you notice, I put quotes around "improve" the outcome.  Not change the outcome or reverse the outcome, nor even improve without quotes.  If folks voted Republican, but are upset they didn't win the popular vote - then do something about it.  If folks didn't vote Republican and are upset that their candidate didn't win, then do something about it.

I intentionally wished to emphasize that political participation during elections is not limited to just voting, although that is the most critical part.  If the election isn't going they way to want, do something about it.  The result is the result - revel in the fact that you are able to be part of the process.

It was an intentional misquote, as I wished to bring the attention from the generic and encompassing  "government" in Maistre down to the level of the individual politician.  Many folks, and I will say myself included, dislike Trump the person.  The individual.  I cannot vote in your elections, so my opinion as to any party's platform is irrelevant.  I will evaluate his leadership and performance as POTUS based on what occurs.

And I will stand by the statement that individuals get the politicians they deserve, inasmuch as this was intended for a democratic environment, where the rule of law still stands.  What happened in Norway (and Germany, Austria, France, Poland, et al) was not done under rule of law.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
punko Thanks for setting us strait.
0
Reply
Male 2,111
punko Thanks for weighing in. As you no doubt noticed, without you, R&D and I were going in circles over your intent.

I have to say, I think your application of de Maistre to the individual citizen is severe. I campaigned and collected signatures for Bernie Sanders, one of Donald Trump's most strident opponents; in addition to time, I donated money toward Trump's defeat; and, of course, I voted against Trump. Now I deserve him? I just don't understand that. This isn't to say that I don't accept Trump as being my president; I do. But do I think that I, for some reason, personally deserve President Trump? No, I don't.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: While nations may get the governments they deserve, individuals get the governments--for better or worse--imposed on them by their nations.

Prior to this discussion, I knew little detail about the circumstances of the de Maistre quote. A monarchist who opposed the French Revolution, de Maistre made the remark in an 1811 letter while serving as an envoy to Czar Alexander I. He was actually opposing democratic proposals of Alexander, and was taking the elitist view that the Russian population weren't elevated or deserving enough for the more European-style reforms. Thus, a more accurate expression of what de Maistre was saying might well be, "Nations have the forms of government best suited for their populace."

I much prefer the democratic and liberal misunderstanding of the quote than its actual paternalistic intent.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with us, Punko. I wish more Americans approached politics with your intelligence.
0
Reply
Male 1,879
richanddead  because he was good for our country.  As a registered "Non-Affiliate...or Independent..."  I'd say the direction we are going is negative...
1
Reply
Male 37,277
kalron27 One day in office, and you can tell? WOW! Trump is a powerful force indeed!
-3
Reply
Male 1,879
5cats I've know who Trump is and what he stands for for decades now.  He is a corporate tool smiley glad-hands blowhard who has an over-inflated ego and is only out for himself and his wealthy friends.  He's persona is not going to change by being elected and it already shows.  If anything it has given him even more delusions of grandeur.  
1
Reply
Male 730
kalron27 I thought you were talking about Clinton there for a second.
1
Reply
Male 1,879
woodyville06 No, Clinton was a stale and grating candidate as well as a typical sleazy politician with many skeletons in her closet...and possibly other places.  While I would have preferred the Bern (couldn't vote for him since I'm an Independent) but I'd take "typical" any day over the Cheeto in Chief, if only because it was the better decision for our planet.
0
Reply
Male 37,277
woodyville06 He was, but he doesn't even know it :-)
-2
Reply
Male 1,879
5cats Read my comment above you prick.  When have I ever shown support for Clinton?
0
Reply
Male 1,410
fancylad, you also forgot:

(1) His executive order that raised the costs of mortgages
(2) His proclamation for a "Day of Patriotism"...which I guess is going to be more important than Patriot's Day b/c I assume we'll be worshiping Trump
(3) Assured everyone that most of the CIA voted for him (essentially making fun of, and bullying, anyone who didn't vote for him as an "outsider")

These next 4 years will be awesome. #ThanksPutin
4
Reply
Male 1,213
bliznik  Yes raised costs of mortgages on the very people that are the most likely to fail to make there payments. Its called Insurance and its done on every 20 year old driver that statistically most likely going to crash there car. This group (its only on the lower end of buyers and first time buyers that put down almost no money), its been put into place to help stop another big housing melt down like the last one that cost the American tax payer billions of dollars. Of which was driven in a big part by people being granted Mortgages that did not have any right  getting a loan and people trying to play the market with adjustable loans. And this happen because the Government forced the banks to loan money to people that they would not normally loan to by the treat of with holding federal loans to the banks. The "Day of Patriotism" well that is quickly becoming a normal thing for the in coming President to call a day not necessarily a fed holiday and usualy only one day in the first year. And they give it there own name Obama did it or did you not read your article to the end.
0
Reply
Male 20,061
bliznik Egads, I was so swamped with Trump's obsession with size, I didn't even know of those things.
2
Reply
Male 1,879
bliznik  #ThanksPutin nice :)
1
Reply
Male 253
It's interesting to see the "cult of personallity" building up here, outright lying and exaggeration. It's not unlike leaders such as Kim Il-sung or Stalin did.
2
Reply
Male 2,111
1
Reply
Male 20,061
squrlz4ever I used to say "Kirk Cameron Blowing Out Candles At His Office Birthday Party" was the saddest photo ever, but I think we have a new winner.

I can only imagine what other countries must be thinking about all of this. 
5
Reply
Male 213
fancylad well, coming from and living in another country I consider you a joke, long before Trump though.

The fact you had Clinton and Trump as the options is the largest one, but coming from a country considered "socialist" it's just an embarassment seeing how you people (the left that plays into the hands of the currently neoliberal democrats) react violently to an election. 
0
Reply
Male 1,011
fancylad If I was to tell you what I (and many that I've spoken to) really think, I'd probably have a knock on the door in the middle of the night, and my computer would be siezed as evidence...
3
Reply
Male 8,026
squrlz4ever Don't believe photos. Those are photos from the dishonest liberal media. They converted the thousands of adoring fans into trees. I can tell because of the pixels.
3
Reply
Male 2,111
holygod Have no fear, I'm confident 5Cats will enter this thread momentarily to distribute some alternative facts.
1
Reply
Male 37,277
squrlz4ever Riots, threats, explosions, tear gas, organized mobs, blockades, nope! None of that happened! It must be because Trump is pure evil!
No one is claiming the parade was as well attended, so nice strawman, nice change of subject, nice decoy, nice distraction. Nice!

It's all IAB Liberals have now: lies, change the subject, pretend you are defending against something that no one ever said.
-5
Reply
Male 1,645
5cats on cue
1
Reply
Male 2,111
5cats Ahhh, I see. The procession (it's a procession, not a parade) leading up to the swearing-in at the Capitol wasn't well-attended but the swearing-in ceremony 45 minutes later was the best-attended ever?

I believed you'd arrive with some alternative facts, 5Cats, and you did not disappoint.


Top: Obama's 2009 inauguration. Bottom: Trump's 2017 inauguration.
1
Reply
Male 37,277
squrlz4ever Pure bullshit. I expected better from you squrlz...
Where's your proof the second photo is what it claims to be?
How does that reconcile with the link from CNN I provided above?
It's just more lies, and you licked it up... shame on you.
-5
Reply
Male 2,111
5cats Here's your proof: A timelapse video of the National Mall made during Trump's inauguration, showing that the photo is exactly what it says it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg

Shame on you. You're repeating bullshit and accusing others of spreading lies without even knowing what you're talking about. Alas, this is nothing new for you. You do it on here all the time, so much so that most of us don't even bother to respond to it anymore.
2
Reply
Male 6,437
squrlz4ever unfortunately We have to combat this bullshit and call it what it is.  This is what "Conservatives believe"  That and get "Liberals" engaged in pushing whichever party toward progressive goals.  Also the Dem's need to change, you can't be the party of the coastal elite anymore, time to bone up and get with the regular man.
1
Reply
Male 2,111
normalfreak2 I agree. After watching a WH spokesman come out to the press and deliver a smorgasbord of lies, then hearing the counselor to the president defend those lies on national television as "alternative facts" (are you f&%#ing kidding me?!), I've come to realize that, as you say, bullshit has to be called out as bullshit.
0
Reply
Male 20,061
squrlz4ever 'SHOPPED!
1
Reply
Male 37,277
fancylad Nope, just straight up DNC propaganda.
-3
Reply
Male 1,645
5cats PIZZAPEDO
0
Reply
Male 1,879
I was at our local protest...my first one ever.  After seeing the marches across the nation and around the world, I am really starting to question the validity of this election.  When one of the highest turn out in voting history lead to the election of the wrong person, something doesn't sit right.  The numbers don't lie, we have been bamboozled by an outside country bent on using this puppet as means of taking over other countries and sending us back to the stone ages.  I kept hearing the chant of "Love Trumps Hate" yesterday, but I am too angry to spread love anymore.  It's time to get vigilant and revolt.
0
Reply
Male 213
kalron27 you would that that tools like you would know how the election works in your own country. Interestingly, you have never protested the electorates before, especially when more states supported democrats.
0
Reply
Male 1,879
Fojos I choose to stand by my wife and for the planet I love.  It is Trump that has driven me to the point of protest.  My country, my right.  Keep to your own or STFU.
0
Reply
Male 1,410
kalron27 Percentage-wise, 2016 had the lowest turnout in the last 20 years. One disappointing thing about the Women's March is that I'm pretty sure that most of the people who showed up didn't even vote. If we had just a few thousand more people vote in the swing states, Hillary probably would have won. Where were all of these people 3 months ago? Seriously...
0
Reply
Male 1,879
bliznik I was looking at these numbers for total popular votes:

2016:

Clinton           Trump
65,844,610     62,979,636

2012:

Obama           Romney
65,915,795    60,933,504 

2008:

Obama           McCain
69,498,516     59,948,323 

I have changed my statement to "one of" as I actually intended and depending on what you look at, straight #s vs Percentages, it still very high and definitely higher than 2012.  But you are right...I bet if all those that went out to protest voted there would have been a different outcome.  I know quite a few people who either just sat this one out or voted for Johnson out of spite that Bernie didn't get the nod.  And they all posted from protests somewhere yesterday.  I also believe there was definitely outside influences that swayed the easily fooled.  But I voted so I have the right to complain.
0
Reply
Male 1,410
kalron27 Agreed
0
Reply
Male 2,111
bliznik I can tell you for a fact that my sister, who attended the march, voted--as did the entire busload of people she went to DC with. Your assertion is nonsense.
0
Reply
Male 20,061
bliznik "I'm pretty sure that most of the people who showed up didn't even vote."

Honest request: Please cite a credible source on this.
0
Reply
Male 1,410
squrlz4ever fancylad Just a gut feeling based upon conversations I've had with friends and colleagues around the US before and after the election--no credible source. I knew a lot of people who, before the election, abstained from voting. I also knew a lot of people who made cold-calls to swing states encouraging them to vote during both of Obama's elections, who did not do the same for Clinton. 

Almost all my friends who voted for Clinton marched. A good number of my friends who abstained from voting also marched. That's the only source I have. It would be nice if someone took a survey, because I was hella curious (and a bit upset) when I found out how many of my friends who abstained from voting were attending marches all around the world.
1
Reply
Male 20,061
bliznik Between me and you, I'd love to know those numbers too. Impossible to accurately speculate though. 
0
Reply
Male 6,437
fancylad Anecdotal but nearly all of my extended family voted for Trump or sat it out.  Most of them live in "middle America"  I have 12 American cousins and 8 uncles and aunts and a grandmother all of voting age.  They live in South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan, 2 of them voted for Hillary, 2.  Everyone else was leaning towards Bernie or were always Trumpters.  But have even said had Bernie ran they would have voted for Bernie over Trump.  That's just in my circle.  Take it for what it's worth.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
kalron27 Actually buddy, the race between Democrat Samuel J. Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 had the highest voter turn out, around 83%. Although to be fair women and minorities weren't allowed to vote at that time. 2016 had the highest total number of votes cast, not the "highest turn out in voting history" as you suggested. The reason for this is because the population of the US has increased but voter turn out actually went down. Only 60% of the country's 232 million eligible voters actually voted this year compared with say 2008 where 62% of eligible voters turned out to vote. Plus the actual number is really lower than that because in over 14 states, more people voted in the Senate races than voted for president. The overall results show that nearly 2.4 million people nationwide cast ballots but left the presidential line blank.

But don't let me stop you, have fun with your chanting, sloganism, and being a revolutionary vigilante, let me know how that turns out for ya.

1
Reply
Male 2,111
richanddead "But don't let me stop you, have fun with your chanting, sloganism, and being a revolutionary vigilante, let me know how that turns out for ya."

That's a lot of contempt you hold for a process that birthed our own nation.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
squrlz4ever: Yea, sure, it's also a process that, more often than not, births idiots and lunatics who use it to justify their own irrationality. So pardon me if I don't hold the acceptable level reverence for all chanting, slogans, and self-deemed revolutionaries out there.
0
Reply
Male 1,879
richanddead You don't like the term "Love Trumps Hate"?  Got it...it's also nice to know what you consider rational is to threaten someone with a gun...Got it...
0
Reply
Male 4,029
kalron27 I could care less about the chant, what I don't find rational is people who say they are "too angry to spread love anymore" and want to "get vigilant."
0
Reply
Male 1,879
richanddead I've reached my boiling point...we all have one.  There is no change without action.  Vigilance does not necessarily mean violence, it can be a something that you are compelled to do as a resistance to opposition.  I see no love coming from the other side, so I can give no love in return.  
0
Reply
Male 4,029
kalron27 Personally, I see no love on either side. When I read your comment I did feel that you were advocating violence, especially the last part "I am too angry to spread love anymore.  It's time to get vigilant and revolt." But if you're not then I take back the more snarky parts of my comment.
0
Reply
Male 1,879
richanddead Why thank you...this is why I resisted texting for so long, you can not see the snark in the soullessness of plain text...I think we are both fans of Black Comedies then.  No harm no fouls.  I'm actually a Taoist if we have to use labels.  I like to float in the river and see where it takes me.  But if it gets rough I know how to handle myself.  I too take back any violent expressions you may have felt.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
this is why I resisted texting for so long

"Silence is a source of great strength." -Lao Tzu

0
Reply
Male 1,879
0
Reply
Male 4,029
kalron27 I was trying to give you a compliment using a Taoist quote, relooking at it I can understand if you misunderstood. I wanted to show you there are no hard feelings. Let me just clear it all up by saying we're cool. I understand what your saying now, you understand me now, we are cool, no hard feelings, sympatico. Christ, this is like the written form of a bad handshake.
                   
0
Reply
Male 1,879
richanddead You were extremely complementary.  Hence the ... = silence ;)  I'ma STFU now ...
0
Reply
Male 2,111
kalron27 Naah, I'll actually intercede on Richanddead's behalf here. I was tweaking his nose for his conservative outlook with that photo, and he was gracious and secure enough to roll with the joke. So I give him a lot of credit there.
0
Reply
Male 1,879
squrlz4ever Yea but " lunatics who use it to justify their own irrationality. So pardon me if I don't hold the acceptable level reverence for all chanting, slogans, and self-deemed revolutionaries out there. " was directed at me.  I liked your run of jokes none the less...why can't mine be one too...albeit more of a jive bustin bitter humor.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
kalron27 Actually @squrlz4ever was correct, I was just joking with the pic. But the quote you mention wasn't really directed at you, although it was your comment that started the discussion. I actually had people like Charles Manson and Ted Kaczynski in mind as I was writing the comment.  
0
Reply
Male 2,111

"Goddam idiots and lunatics--always yapping about change. GET OFF MY LAWN!" 

This is either Richanddead in 35 years--or today. I'm not sure which.
1
Reply
Male 4,029
More like:

0
Reply
Male 2,111
richanddead LOL! Well, I'll certainly be giving it a wide berth.
0
Reply
Male 1,879
squrlz4ever I wonder how many squirrels he has told to "get off his lawn"?
0
Reply
Male 2,111
kalron27 Hmmmm. I don't know. I can't remember having any squirrel-related conversations with R&D.
0
Reply
Male 20,061
Thanks for doing the footwork on these numbers, richanddead
2
Reply
Male 4,029
fancylad Yea no problem
1
Reply
Male 6,437
richanddead Also the Democrats won the popular vote in the Senate too.  The US is run by a minority.  (that's even if you take out California which skews it immensely.)  I wouldn't be shocked that a larger minority of the country  is unhappy with the current predicament.  
1
Reply
Male 4,029
normalfreak2 Yea of coarse, only about two-thirds of the country holds Senate races in any given election. The two biggest, bluest states in the country, California and New York, just happened to be up where as some of the biggest GOP-leaning states like Texas were not. Not to mention there were certain Democratic Senators who ran unopposed like Terri Sewell. In more up-for-grabs states though like Ohio the GOP won by over a million votes. I'm not saying that the Republicans won as impressively as they try to make out, but Democrats were not as popular as they are trying to make out either. Most voted more on who they didn't want in office more-so than who they did want in office.
1
Reply
Male 1,879
richanddead And you enjoy your tyrant in chief.
1
Reply
Male 2,424
kalron27 Aren't you adorable.
1
Reply
Male 20,061
kalron27 Nodding my head in agreement.
0
Reply
Male 8,026
Our president is on twitter bragging about his television ratings for his inauguration. Let me repeat that. OUR PRESIDENT is on TWITTER BRAGGING about his TELEVISION RATINGS for his inauguration.
2
Reply
Male 4,994
holygod When I saw that and his CIA address Only one word came to mind: PETTY
1
Reply
Male 20,061
holygod It's like the first act of a dystopian movie that the best screenwriter in the world could never come up with.
1
Reply
Male 8,026
fancylad The problem is if Aaron Sorkin wrote this screenplay the dictator wouldn't speak with a 3rd grade vocabulary.
0
Reply
Male 20,061
holygod Personally, I'm waiting for the inevitable Oliver Stone movie because you know it's going to happen.
0
Reply
Male 1,879
holygod like a spoiled little 12 year old.
2
Reply
Female 269
How embarrassing.

What a sad, petty little man.
2
Reply
Male 37,277
DrCribbens I know right! How sad that FancyLad has posted pathetic lies and hate-filled DNC Propaganda in place of actual content. 
-2
Reply
Female 269
5cats Which bits are the lies, 5Cats? Surely even a Trump apologist can tell who's lying here?
0
Reply
Male 37,277
DrCribbens There's been over 200 anti-Trump Hate-filled postings, take your pick, half of them are pure and utter lies, nothing else. The rest are a mix of exaggeration, misrepresentation or propaganda... an occasional few are correct, but presented in a way to highlight the hate, rather than the facts or truth. Sad really... pathetic even.
0
Reply
Female 269
5cats I assume when you say 'pure and utter lies' you actually mean 'pure and utter alternative facts'?

Nice way to avoid the question by the way.
0
Reply