Inauguration Day - My public thoughts

[GMDino]

(01-20-2017, 02:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That was a much more divisive speech than I was expecting. He insulted every elected and formerly elected person on the platform with him. It will play well to his base, and will make everyone else uneasy. One of the conservative journalists I follow said it would make "his supporters thrilled, and his opponents terrified." I don't agree with terrified, because while people like to place all of this power with the executive, there are tools to counter when things go too far. But it will certainly make them uneasy.

Also, I just can't agree with the claim that his taking office is giving power back to the people. I don't dispute his legitimacy, but he didn't win the popular vote. That's not giving the power to the people.

There was a lot to pick out of the speech.  But overall it was just that: A speech to his supporters.  A rally speech.  Beginning Monday (I guess) we'll see what he does and it he produces.

But it wasn't a crapfest with lots of his usual off the cuff remarks. So (and I know I lowered the bar) it wasn't as bad as I expected.

[BmorePat87]

(01-20-2017, 02:30 PM)McC Wrote: No, but his ideology was.  Outside of NY and California, of course.

Damn, Clinton got 66 million votes from NY and California combined? That's really impressive.

[BmorePat87]

(01-20-2017, 02:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That was a much more divisive speech than I was expecting. He insulted every elected and formerly elected person on the platform with him. It will play well to his base, and will make everyone else uneasy. One of the conservative journalists I follow said it would make "his supporters thrilled, and his opponents terrified." I don't agree with terrified, because while people like to place all of this power with the executive, there are tools to counter when things go too far. But it will certainly make them uneasy.

Also, I just can't agree with the claim that his taking office is giving power back to the people. I don't dispute his legitimacy, but he didn't win the popular vote. That's not giving the power to the people.

It was assuming to hear him insult everyone on stage with him, talk about the "carnage" and need to "rebuild" when the reality is we have more jobs now than 8 years ago and less crime than 20 years ago. Talk about giving Washington back to the people as wealthy donors and career politicians make up his cabinet. 

Why bother with facts, though? 

[McC]

(01-20-2017, 03:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Damn, Clinton got 66 million votes from NY and California combined? That's really impressive.

The margin of victory in the popular vote that the lame asses can't stop screaming about came from those two liberal bastions.

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2017, 03:19 PM)McC Wrote: The margin of victory in the popular vote that the lame asses can't stop screaming about came from those two liberal bastions.

Those that point to the popular vote as anything other than a moot point AFTER the results only embarass themselves.

Hell they can't even say Hills got the majority of the popular vote.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-20-2017, 02:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That was a much more divisive speech than I was expecting. He insulted every elected and formerly elected person on the platform with him. It will play well to his base, and will make everyone else uneasy. One of the conservative journalists I follow said it would make "his supporters thrilled, and his opponents terrified." I don't agree with terrified, because while people like to place all of this power with the executive, there are tools to counter when things go too far. But it will certainly make them uneasy.

Also, I just can't agree with the claim that his taking office is giving power back to the people. I don't dispute his legitimacy, but he didn't win the popular vote. That's not giving the power to the people.

I didn't see it as divisive. What is divisive is those that did not show up to show their proper respect to the newly elected POTUS. (with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard). Seriously NO Republican's skipped out on Obama's First Inauguration Day. Some skipped his second one, but the majority of those had attended his first one.

For one, they are acting as partisan as they claim the Republicans were for the last 8 years.

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2017, 03:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't see it as divisive. What is divisive is those that did not show up to show their proper respect to the newly elected POTUS. (with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard). Seriously NO Republican's skipped out on Obama's First Inauguration Day. Some skipped his second one, but the majority of those had attended his first one.

For one, they are acting as partisan as they claim the Republicans were for the last 8 years.

This is perhaps going off on a tangent, but I agree with this 100% and said so in the Riot thread. Folks that are elected officials are going to "protest" the election process and its results. I'm not sure how much more hypocritical one can be than that.

I will say the left does not have a monopoly on that; as those on the right also protested his victory; although I'm not sure if any skipped today's events.

[GMDino]

(01-20-2017, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is perhaps going off on a tangent, but I agree with this 100% and said so in the Riot thread. Folks that are elected officials are going to "protest" the election process and its results. I'm not sure how much more hypocritical one can be than that.

I will say the left does not have a monopoly on that; as those on the right also protested his victory; although I'm not sure if any skipped today's events.

More than a few on the right skipped the 2012 inauguration, for what it's worth.

[*wildcats forever*]

(01-20-2017, 03:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't see it as divisive. What is divisive is those that did not show up to show their proper respect to the newly elected POTUS. (with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard). Seriously NO Republican's skipped out on Obama's First Inauguration Day. Some skipped his second one, but the majority of those had attended his first one.

For one, they are acting as partisan as they claim the Republicans were for the last 8 years.

This country needed unity behind its president at every inauguration, and didn't always get it. Unity will only happen when leaders actually lead by example, show that the best interests of all citizens is at the forefront of the administration, and not just for who voted for them. Admit it or not, we have a President who continues to use social media to belittle those with whom he disagrees. That is what fuels divisiveness. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-20-2017, 03:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't see it as divisive. What is divisive is those that did not show up to show their proper respect to the newly elected POTUS. (with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard). Seriously NO Republican's skipped out on Obama's First Inauguration Day. Some skipped his second one, but the majority of those had attended his first one.

For one, they are acting as partisan as they claim the Republicans were for the last 8 years.

I saw the language as divisive, but I also agree that the whole not showing up is just as much so. When my wife and I were talking about all of this and she was in support of them boycotting I told her that HRC will be there. If HRC can be there, then anyone that is traditionally expected to be at the event can be there. Period.

[hollodero]

(01-20-2017, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is perhaps going off on a tangent, but I agree with this 100% and said so in the Riot thread. Folks that are elected officials are going to "protest" the election process and its results. I'm not sure how much more hypocritical one can be than that.

I will say the left does not have a monopoly on that; as those on the right also protested his victory; although I'm not sure if any skipped today's events.

I agree in principle. Then again, your current president led the birther campaign against your former president, which kind of is a peak in disrespecting the elected president. Just saying it because it's also true. It shifts things.

[BmorePat87]

(01-20-2017, 03:19 PM)McC Wrote: The margin of victory in the popular vote that the lame asses can't stop screaming about came from those two liberal bastions.

You said that outside of those two states, his ideology was "fired". Unless her votes came from only those two states, I fail to see how that happened. 

[GMDino]

The White House page on Climate and the page on LGBT rights have been scrubbed from the website.

Originally they both had splash pages to sign up for emails from Tump/Pence now the LGBT link is completely gone.


https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/the-white-houses-lgbt-rights-page-has-disappeared/

[Millhouse]

I actually admired his address today. Unlike probably most of his predecessors, it wasn't a made for a movie speech written by speechwriters. That in itself is a nice break from tradition.

[BmorePat87]

(01-20-2017, 04:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: The White House page on Climate and the page on LGBT rights have been scrubbed from the website.

Originally they both had splash pages to sign up for emails from Tump/Pence now the LGBT link is completely gone.


https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/the-white-houses-lgbt-rights-page-has-disappeared/

To be fair, it looks like almost every major page has been scrubbed. It looks like a campaign website right now.

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2017, 04:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: I agree in principle. Then again, your current president led the birther campaign against your former president, which kind of is a peak in disrespecting the elected president. Just saying it because it's also true. It shifts things.

Notice I said Elected Officials, not private citizens which is what Trump was at the time. Private Citizens have every right to boycot the event

[GMDino]

(01-20-2017, 04:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: To be fair, it looks like almost every major page has been scrubbed. It looks like a campaign website right now.

That makes more sense.

[Belsnickel]

The Jonah Goldberg/National Review write-up on the speech: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444066/donald-trumps-inaugural-speech-america-first

[BmorePat87]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/01/20/donald_trump_s_new_twitter_background_is_a_photo_from_the_inauguration_of.html

LOL, the twitter background Trump's team put up once they got the POTUS account was an image from Obama's inauguration. They were quickly called out and changed it to a flag. It has since been changed to a low quality photo of him in the White House.

[Millhouse]

(01-20-2017, 04:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: To be fair, it looks like almost every major page has been scrubbed. It looks like a campaign website right now.

Yeah typically that is what the White House page has always been. It's about the current President's plans for future and 'achievements' while in office. 

In regards to the LGBT community, I hope Trump dances with Caitlynn Jenner tonight, who will be at one of the balls. I think that would send a great message imo.