Inauguration Day - My public thoughts

[McC]

It's nice to know how fervently we can focus on irrelevant shit. Hey, our party may be a dinosaur completely out of touch with its constituents and our spokespeople may be a giant collection of arrogant assholes and we lost races all across the country but hey, our party was bigger than yours. Keep on floundering, Democrats. It is cheap entertainment. And the funniest part is, you can't even see it.

Oh, yes, and keep on doing what you're doing, paving the way for President Trump's second term.

[BmorePat87]

(01-24-2017, 02:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless you got one of those crazy work schedules where Tuesday is a work day.

Yea... Tuesday and Friday are both work days. I will make a guess that more people take off Friday than Tuesday. The point being, I've heard comments on unemployment or people being at work, and that seems to go out the window when you consider the fact that Obama's first inauguration was a Tuesday.

Like I said, I think the fact that Obama's inauguration was a bigger deal and he was more popular is the reason why he set the record for the biggest inauguration. 

[GMDino]

(01-24-2017, 02:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea... Tuesday and Friday are both work days. I will make a guess that more people take off Friday than Tuesday. The point being, I've heard comments on unemployment or people being at work, and that seems to go out the window when you consider the fact that Obama's first inauguration was a Tuesday.

Like I said, I think the fact that Obama's inauguration was a bigger deal and he was more popular is the reason why he set the record for the biggest inauguration. 

Some people are amazed that people with jobs would take a vacation to be at a historic event.

Like EVERYONE who attends these things didn't have a job.  

[McC]

(01-24-2017, 02:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea... Tuesday and Friday are both work days. I will make a guess that more people take off Friday than Tuesday. The point being, I've heard comments on unemployment or people being at work, and that seems to go out the window when you consider the fact that Obama's first inauguration was a Tuesday.

Like I said, I think the fact that Obama's inauguration was a bigger deal and he was more popular is the reason why he set the record for the biggest inauguration. 

And the importance of that seems really minimal.  It looks a lot like a bunch of people who thought they had the thing in the bag trying to soothe their pain with anything they can think of.  yeah, you have the WH and both Houses of Congress and soon to be the Supreme Court and many of the state houses and we've got people like Madonna doing our talking for us but we had a bigger crowd.  So there.  

[BmorePat87]

(01-24-2017, 03:24 PM)McC Wrote: And the importance of that seems really minimal.  It looks a lot like a bunch of people who thought they had the thing in the bag trying to soothe their pain with anything they can think of.  yeah, you have the WH and both Houses of Congress and soon to be the Supreme Court and many of the state houses and we've got people like Madonna doing our talking for us but we had a bigger crowd.  So there.  

Apparently the importance of crowd sizes was important to the President as well. So much so that he had his Press Secretary come out and give objectively false alternative facts. 

If he's going to make it a top priority, let's at least speak truthfully about it.

[Benton]

(01-24-2017, 03:24 PM)McC Wrote: And the importance of that seems really minimal.  

Agreed. Which is why I can't figure out why the POTUS won't let it go.

POTUS: My inauguration was huge!
Media: No, it wasn't that big.
POTUS: LIARS! Alternative facts!
Media: Ok, great, let's talk about the trade deal with Asia. U.S. ag producers are freaking out because food is one of our major exports. What do —
POTUS: Wait, wait, wait. Let's talk about my inauguration. Say it was huge. Say it.
Media: — you plan to do —
POTUS: Say it.
Media: — to ease concerns for farmers —
POTUS: Huge.
Media: — worried about the —
POTUS: Say it. H-U-G-E.
Media: — drop in exports?
POTUS: Clearly, I can't work with you.

[Belsnickel]

(01-24-2017, 03:50 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. Which is why I can't figure out why the POTUS won't let it go.

POTUS: My inauguration was huge!
Media: No, it wasn't that big.
POTUS: LIARS! Alternative facts!
Media: Ok, great, let's talk about the trade deal with Asia. U.S. ag producers are freaking out because food is one of our major exports. What do —
POTUS: Wait, wait, wait. Let's talk about my inauguration. Say it was huge. Say it.
Media: — you plan to do —
POTUS: Say it.
Media: — to ease concerns for farmers —
POTUS: Huge.
Media: — worried about the —
POTUS: Say it. H-U-G-E.
Media: — drop in exports?
POTUS: Clearly, I can't work with you.

That is what gets me. The size of the inauguration crowd is silly to focus on, and we would not be talking about it today had Trump not sent Spicer out to the podium to lie to the press pool about it. Then, on Sunday, when the discussion from the media (that I saw at least) was about "why would you send Spicer out to lie over something so trivial as crowd size?" we got Conway retorting with "why are you talking about crowd size!? That's not important!" Well, no, it isn't, which is why we want to know why you would risk the credibility of the Press Secretary for the White House on something so stupid and, I'll use Chuck Todd's word for it, ridiculous.

This has been the most asinine thing. Like the MLK bust controversy. There was a mistake made. It was corrected immediately after being discovered and apologies were made, and accepted, on social media over it. But the story over the trivial continues because the administration enjoys trying to paint this narrative that the media is out to get them.

[Benton]

(01-24-2017, 04:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is what gets me. The size of the inauguration crowd is silly to focus on, and we would not be talking about it today had Trump not sent Spicer out to the podium to lie to the press pool about it. Then, on Sunday, when the discussion from the media (that I saw at least) was about "why would you send Spicer out to lie over something so trivial as crowd size?" we got Conway retorting with "why are you talking about crowd size!? That's not important!" Well, no, it isn't, which is why we want to know why you would risk the credibility of the Press Secretary for the White House on something so stupid and, I'll use Chuck Todd's word for it, ridiculous.

This has been the most asinine thing. Like the MLK bust controversy. There was a mistake made. It was corrected immediately after being discovered and apologies were made, and accepted, on social media over it. But the story over the trivial continues because the administration enjoys trying to paint this narrative that the media is out to get them.

And that concerns me.

The federal government is huge. The reach is global. The problems we face are, in many ways, historic. And we're wasting time over **** waving about who had the biggest inauguration. Instead of spending time worrying about a litany of cans kicked down the road, several of the first few hours of the Trump term has been spent arguing about crowd size and where a bust got put.

Republicans (and I know Trump isn't with the mindset of the majority of his party) have said for 8 years (and the final few years of Bush The Second) that the only way to fix things is to give them absolute, unfettered control. The early hours of it have been spent worrying about ego and blowing through tax dollars.

[*Nately120*]

(01-24-2017, 03:24 PM)McC Wrote: And the importance of that seems really minimal.  It looks a lot like a bunch of people who thought they had the thing in the bag trying to soothe their pain with anything they can think of.  yeah, you have the WH and both Houses of Congress and soon to be the Supreme Court and many of the state houses and we've got people like Madonna doing our talking for us but we had a bigger crowd.  So there.  

Lordy, take your own advice and let this "minimal" thing go.  Maybe convince Trump to do the same thing, while you're at it.  

[Belsnickel]

Side note, one theory I have heard is that the whole thing this weekend was throwing Spicer under the bus. Spicer was a Priebus pick, Trump wanted Conway as Press Secretary and doesn't like Spicer. This gives him justification to fire Spicer. I know it's a bit off topic, but these are just some rumblings I have heard.

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/17/corporations-gave-millions-donald-trump-inauguration/98056554/

Quote:Corporations gave millions to Donald Trump inauguration

Fredreka Schouten and Christopher Schnaars , USA TODAY5:22 p.m. ET Feb. 17, 2017



WASHINGTON — Corporations with big interests in federal policy contributed millions to help underwrite President Trump’s recent inauguration, federal records show.


Pfizer, Dow Chemical and Bank of America gave $1 million apiece to the inaugural committee, which raised private funds for the balls, receptions, parade and other events celebrating Trump’s Jan. 20 swearing-in. More than a dozen companies have reported giving a little more than $7 million total through Dec. 31, a USA TODAY tally of recently filed lobbying reports show.


Inaugural organizers have said they collected about $100 million for last month’s event — a record sum that’s nearly double the $53 million in private money President Obama took in for his first inauguration. Obama did not accept corporate donations for the 2009 event but did take corporate funds for his second inauguration in 2013.


A full accounting of Trump’s inaugural fundraising and spending isn’t due until April, but recent filings with Congress from lobbyists and the companies that employ them offer a snapshot of the efforts by corporate America to support Trump once he captured the White House.


Pfizer, which spent nearly $9.8 million on federal lobbying last year, made its $1 million inaugural donation on Dec. 21, records show.
Company spokeswoman Sharon Castillo said Pfizer has contributed to inaugural committees “on both sides of the aisle” in the past and “decided to make a financial contribution to the presidential inaugural committee this time around.”


Pfizer did not donate to Obama’s 2013 inauguration, according to public records, and Castillo declined to discuss why the company did not provide financial support then.


Industries are bracing for big change under the Trump administration — from moves to roll back so-called Dodd-Frank regulations on the financial sector to efforts to drive down drug prices. Shortly before he took office, Trump said pharmaceutical companies were “getting away with murder” and pledged that he would allow Medicare, the federal insurance system for the disabled and elderly, to negotiate prices with drug makers.


In a Jan. 31 meeting with pharmaceutical executives at the White House, Trump was less critical and said he would cut taxes and streamline regulations as a way to drive down prices, a move applauded by the drug makers.


Bank of America, which donated $300,000 to Obama’s 2013 inauguration, gave $1 million on Dec. 19 for Trump’s festivities, records show.
“We consider it part of our civic responsibility to pitch in,” Lawrence Di Rita, a Bank of America spokesman, said in an email about the donation. “We supported prior inaugurals at meaningful levels, just as we did this year.”


Records show other Trump inaugural donors include ExxonMobil, Amgen, Florida Crystals Corp., tobacco giant Altria and Microsoft, each of which donated $500,000. Half of Microsoft’s donation took the form of in-kind products and services.


Other companies previously have announced contributions to the inaugural committee. Boeing, which faced a Twitter attack from Trump in December over the cost of the company’s work on the next generation of the Air Force One fleet, donated $1 million to the Trump inaugural festivities, matching the amount it gave to the Obama events in 2013.


Trump has since met several times with Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg and on Friday, traveled to South Carolina to celebrate the launch of Boeing’s newest aircraft, the Dreamliner 787-10, and tout his message of preserving American jobs.

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/15/pro-trump-lobbyist-lands-big-clients-new-dc-office/97970168/][/url]
Those who gave $1 million to Trump’s inauguration received an array of special perks, including tickets to a black-tie candlelight dinner at Washington’s Union Station attended by Trump and his family, admission to the Inaugural Balls and VIP seating along the Inaugural Parade route.


Trump and his allies also raised private funds to help pay staff and other costs associated with his presidential transition.


Those donations are capped at $5,000 per donor. The lobbying reports analyzed by USA TODAY show about two dozen lobbyists, their employers and political action committees reported contributing to the transition effort through Dec. 31. Their spending totaled nearly $100,000.