Steve Bannon.

[hollodero]

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't want to go there, because it's highly speculative, but studies have found that out of the 22-24 Million Illegal immigrants and non-US immigrants, that approximately 25% think they are registered to vote. Throw in the Trump Wall as an issue for the 2016 election, and it's not a stretch to day that vote participation would be very high amongst those 2 groups. Would it be nice to see some actual data? Yes it would, but unless you are a Democrat, then the numbers seem believable. The Liberals keep downplaying this group simply because it tends to vote 80:20 Dem:Rep.

Well. As you said, highly speculative. Which should be enough cause to refrain giving out numbers like "at least 3 million" as a given, like Trump did. Or to claim that there are buses full of illegal voters coming to New Hampshire, what even GOP members from New Hampshire sharply rejected.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: False, the Media did post a picture of the Event early in the morning and compared it to Obama's during the speech to show that Trump attendees was down.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/

Look closely at the pictures, they went further left for Trump's than Obama's picture. CNN also claims that there was 1.8 Million at Obama's Inauguration. However, a company which specializes in counting crowd sizes says it was more like 800k for Obama and ironically, what was forecasted for Trump speech. They are not done yet counting on Trump's speech at least I couldn't find any numbers from them yet.

There are other pictures too.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2pHhT3XAAAOePz.jpg

- In fact, I do not care about the crowd size, and neither should Trump, that kind of is my point. Have you seen that interview where he shared his feelings when "by accident" zapping to a network covering the inauguration? His voice was so dramatic, effect-seeking, as if he was the victim of a huge complot. I don't know which film it was where someone said "are you such a big loser that you don't even recognize when you've won?" - nope. His public hunger for appreciation tops all other notions of this man. All other notions. That alone really is hard to argue and should worry people.
It's the whole pettiness behind it. As I said, topped by letting poor Spicer run out and say there are no numbers and it was the biggest crowd ever, period! One of these sentences being a lie, logically. Then Trump has the nerve to talk more about crowd size in front of the CIA wall. And allegedly to several world leaders, where his own popularity always is an issue. There's a time and a place, even if his claims were correct (which according to almost everybody they aren't).

As for facts on that one, they are obviously hard to come by, but I saw even very cautious people that said 2008 crowd was definitely bigger.
And what else? No one would have cared. It means nothing except to him.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As usual, Trump's point was lost in MSM translation (of CYA) that they originally downplayed his attendance and Trump called them on it.

This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period. There is not much wiggle room for interpretation in that statement.
But this "as usual" part gets a habit. I do not envy you, having to interpret everything Trump or one of his minions says in a way he more or less clearly did not say it.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Trump doesn't make it about liking him, he makes it about people that should be doing their job instead of playing political games, like the 9th Circuit Court and the Media telling the Truth (even though he is not always truthful). His "ban" was done via following the law perfectly. The only part that should have been expounded on further was the Green Card Holders.

...which makes the term "perfectly" a bit vague. Denying Green Card holders - and iraqi US war fighters who were granted right of residence for their service - entrance was not following the law "perfectly".
Even Neil Gorsuch called Trumps response to the judges "demoralizing". You can hardly blame him for playing "political games" there.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Alt Facts? Kellyanne and Spicer both admitted they made a mistake in their interviews. This administration is green and getting their feet wet, they will get more and more polished as they get more experienced. There was no need for the MSM stupidity about that occurred.

Well, good for them.
(I do not kow what MSM means, though, so I can not respond)

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Agitating and silencing opposition? Name one POTUS that hasn't done anything like that before?

Not like that.
I mentioned the stuff, from the birther thing to false murder allegiations (CentralPark5 or whatever they were called), threatening Hillary with jailtime, calling newspapers "failing" and CNN "fake news", calling for the cancellation of SNL, Stephen Miller talking about judicial usurpation and enormous POTUS power not to be questioned, Kellyanne with her massacre invention (I'm sorry, I can't see that as a simple "mistake"), claiming the "so-called" judge is to blame for any terror attacks happening, and so on. And I will add his campaign claims about how the US is losing, in peril, laughed at and taken advantage of by every single country, how the american dream is dead, Ted Cruz' father is connected to the JFK murder, the golden star wife might not be allowed to talk, how second amendment people could do something about Hillary, how Mexico sends rapists, how he would bring back torture and kill families of alleged terrorists, sending the feds to chicago, going after Rosie O'Donnell, Meryl Streep, Ariana Huffington with truely hurtful comments, how China invented Climate change, how he would likely not accept a loss at the election, the wrong unemployment rates (over 40%), ok I was there already... and I stop because I'm bored, and all that is NOTHING compared to what Steve Bannon has said and done over the years as part of the Breitbart family.

Yeah, I say with confidence that Obama did nothing of that kind, ever. Neither did Bush or Clinton, I can't think further back, but I'd say Bush I and Reagan are safe too.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It's not all about attacking whoever is opposed to him, in the case of the Media it's about reporting on him out of context or falsely reporting in the first place. People attacking Baron (his 10 year old) and calling his wife a former professional escort (She sued that blogger and won the case btw),

I am not aware of these instances, but these are to be condemned. If Trump made this case in these instances, I'd agree with him.
Who did that though? Fake news CNN, failing NY times?

And it IS about attacking whoever is opposed. He does it with the precision of a mathematical equation. He likes those that praise him, he slams those that are critical of him. Schwarzenegger, Streep, O'Donnell and thousands more. Who is critical gets a response, as soon as that person is important enough to him.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: and spreading all kinds of other lies (such as idiots that compare him to Hitler/Mussolini) you'd be a little agitated as well.

I don't know... I said before that I agree, a Hitler comparison is not justified.
Right now the more accurate comparison would be Berlusconi :) with tendencies towards Nasarbajew.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You have a lot of Opinion in there as well.

No doubt.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So let's go for Truth.

What rights has he taken away from USC's?
What Protesters has he silenced?

Until now, he took away rights (rather, tried to) from Green Card holders and those who relied on promises of a right to stay in the US. That are not citizens, sure. From citizens, you're right, he has not, at least I'm not aware. All (I think valid) critizism aside, that holds true - until now.
The only decent tweet (there are some neutral ones like congratulating Brady though) was the one where he said he acknowledged the right to protest. If there were some more of these, I'd be a bit less alarmed.