Steve Bannon.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.


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.



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.

Can't defend or dispute it until something comes out with a head count.
I can tell you this though, even with Hillary having all of her Celebrities out there doing her work for her, that Trump's crowds dwarfed her crowds. Hell Trump had overflow crowds at Stadiums and didn't have any Celebrities. Hillary struggled filling High School Gyms.

With that said, it's no small wonder that he had a big turnout, and it probably would've been even bigger if it wasn't on a workday and idiots weren't blocking people from trying to attend.

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: ...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.

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

Technically, he does have the right even for Green Card Holders. They are not USC's and USC's were not blocked. The Ninth Circuit is run by Curly, Larry and Moe. Those guys put politics ahead of the Constitution. They just did it again with the Gun Control crowd today!

MSM is Main Stream Media (Such as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc)

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

Again his persona, you either like him or don't or don't care. I don't care about the little tirades, he's going to have them because that's who he is. As I keep telling people, he enjoys being in the Media Spotlight and knows exactly how to play the media and they just keep on falling for it.

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

Too bad I don't have enough time right now to properly research that, but I can definitely give you some examples from each former POTUS.

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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?

The blogger worked for the Daily Mail is the one that got sued for libel and lost.
NYTimes reporter was just caught recently. Look up Jacob Bernstein.
Rosie O'Donnell thinks Baron has Autism. Got Sued and backtracked like a whale out of water.
Saturday Night Live writer thinks Baron will be the first home school mass shooter. Writer was suspended.
Harassment of Ivaanka on a plane while with her family and children. the 2 harassers were thrown off plane.

And he's only been on the job for 3 weeks now.

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

Have you noticed that he doesn't attack people unless they attack him first?

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

No doubt.

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.

Exactly, he hasn't taken away any rights of USC's. He can't with out Congress backing and I might be able to believe the Berlusconi comparison more so than the others.