Inauguration

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:33 pm

ZAP;1505558 wrote: Hillary Clinton wasn't being humorous when she used that term. It was insulting to some of my family and friends.

Maybe WE ALL get offended too easily. From 'The Four Agreements' (a GREAT Read, I highly recommend): "Don't take anything personally."

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:47 pm

AnneBoleyn;1505560 wrote: Maybe WE ALL get offended too easily. From 'The Four Agreements' (a GREAT Read, I highly recommend): "Don't take anything personally."

Thanks Anne. I'll read it.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:47 pm

ZAP;1505558 wrote: Hillary Clinton wasn't being humorous when she used that term. It was insulting to some of my family and friends.

Hillary didn't call all trump supporters deplorable. She was referring to the bigots, Nazis, Skinheads, and other low-lifes that attached themselves to Trump.

I had lots of friends and family members that supported Trump, as well, but they figured out that they weren't the deplorable ones to which she was referring. Well, some of them did. some are still whining about that deplorable comment.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:50 pm

ZAP;1505562 wrote: Thanks Anne. I'll read it.

Thanks, you made me so happy. Your avatar is a unicorn. You say you are a child of the Universe. When you read it, let's discuss it on board, ok? Maybe others will join in.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:55 pm

I had an interesting experience today.

I was running errands, and stopped at the local Starbucks for a cuppa.

As the counter person handed me my coffee, she said, "Have a great day."

I replied, Thank you, and you do the same."

I then added, "And happy Trump Day."

She laughed a bit and said, "Um, thanks. It's been a weird day."

I agreed and walked away.

Well, as I turned, I saw a woman, probably mid 40s, staring at me. As we made eye contact, she jumped up grabbed her coffee and walked out.

I sat down to sip coffee, and check email and such.

Then I noticed a fellow sitting at a corner table. He was just staring at me.

I went on about my business, but every time I looked around, he was still there, still staring.

When I got up to leave, he was still there.

As I walked to my car, I noticed him following me out. He stood on the walkway watching as I got in my car, and drove off.

It was the first time that I ever was relieved to realize that my automobile registration does not have my current physical address.

I hope he noticed the "No Trump" sticker on the back of my car.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:08 pm

tude dog;1505545 wrote: Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Does anybody else notice there is nothing about voting?

All the same, the system was to prevent the more populous states from ruling over the rest of the nation. I am happy to see it is working as intended.

Nope, the process was pretty much left to be defined in the Code of Laws. And much was left to the states as to how they would implement it. But then originally they were directed to cast a vote for the President and a vote for the Vice President.

However as recently as 2004 and 2008, there were only 5 states that had adopted the "All-or-nothing" approach. Now, there are only 2 that hold to the district method.

aside: The Constitution was never intended to be the absolute final word on the laws of the US. It was intended to be the cornerstone and the foundation.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:14 pm

chuckle. you know, tude dog, I've lost count of the number of brexiters who argue just like you. I'll leave you to enjoy your President.

LarsMac: Now that is downright scary. Not just because of what it was like for you, but for what it says about the way American society has split.

I'm not sure yet of the effects here. There is certainly a split but we've had no riots that I'm aware of. Just more racially motivated hate incidents, a few of them murders. However the change is deep. There's a lot of really nasty stuff floating around just under the surface. Murdoch is bidding for the remaining 2/3rds of Sky while all our efforts are pointed to brexit and no-one has time to stop him (which they did before). There's already an ongoing assault on the BBC and rich far right types of the sort who led the brexit movement back it. Below them the neo-nazis and white supremacists are hugely encouraged.

In both our countries, it's not just the obvious political changes on the surface that are of concern, it's the stuff going on a level or two down that is equally worrying.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:20 pm

AnneBoleyn;1505564 wrote: Thanks, you made me so happy. Your avatar is a unicorn. You say you are a child of the Universe. When you read it, let's discuss it on board, ok? Maybe others will join in.

I'm happy I made you happy. I read some clips from the work and I'm anxious to read it in full. It brings to mind two of my favorite writings: Desiderata and If.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:32 pm

I'll try again - the second from the left in the photo at http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uplo ... 00x430.jpg

She's evidently about Donald Trump's age so she can't be his mother, she can't be his daughter, she's not his wife (she's next along in blue) so who is she? I managed to place most of the others on that row.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:40 pm

No, that's his wife; the one in blue is a daughter

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:52 pm

Blimey. I don't recall the new President paying much attention to her. I'll recognize her again now I've been told.

The White House website is new. whitehouse.gov - it has an interesting layout and a dozen pages on policy areas. It could be a helpful site for detail as it expands.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:55 pm

Are you really asking ?

Second from the left look HERE or HERE

It is the latest Mrs Trump.....the first lady.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:03 am

Yes, I was asking because I didn't know. The President was accompanied on the platform, as far as I could tell from watching, by the one in the blue dress. I reckon the First Lady looks way different stood shivering in a crowd outdoors than she does in her flimsies under studio spotlights. And I dislike the pout-lip look after they've been pumped full of excess bumfat, or whatever they use.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 5:35 am

spot;1505578 wrote: Yes, I was asking because I didn't know. The President was accompanied on the platform, as far as I could tell from watching, by the one in the blue dress. I reckon the First Lady looks way different stood shivering in a crowd outdoors than she does in her flimsies under studio spotlights. And I dislike the pout-lip look after they've been pumped full of excess bumfat, or whatever they use.

Chuckle. Well, that nearly had me spitting my tea!

I see we now do indeed have Trump day, as prefigured by Larsmac above.

Wonder what sort of trade deal we'll get out of buy American, hire American economics...

And we will find out if many who voted against Obamacare didn't realise that's what the Affordable Care Act was.

Ah well. When the world's falling apart around you, watching a movie is as good a way to pass the time as any. Pass the popcorn?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:29 am

Never before has a Presient been elected who is not only hated so much by his own people, but by the world. He didn't win the Presidential Election. He won the Electoral College election - something that clearly is not representative of the people.

Even more frightening is that he is Putin's puppet.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:31 am

I suspect the core issue is whether the Republican party is a house divided against itself or not. If they all do as they're told by the new Administration there will be a lot done over the next four years.

As for "not only hated so much by his own people, but by the world", you're forgetting Abraham Lincoln. He was only deified after he died. Many in England wanted the British to fight the North once Lincoln's war started.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:50 am

Well, it seems to me the situation is that a lot of very rich, powerful people have a mandate and the ability to make things much better for rich powerful people. And sod the rest. It's what I think is happening in both the the US and UK. Brexiters and Trumpists are the same groups, the same sort of people by and large.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:27 am

The last time we had big populist movements run by dodgy people was the 1920s and 30s, driven by large amounts of discontented people on the Continent. Britain and the US were largely immune - Britain sheltered by its Empire, and the US with a military about the size of Portugal's (iirc?) was booming entirely independently. This time Britain and America are leading the charge with their own discontented, this time ridden by ultra rich businessmen with cackling neo-nazis riding their coattails.

Most of the supporters of Mussolini and Hitler back then had no idea where they were being led and the same is true now. Trump and the brexit leaders inside and outside Parliament have no fixed destination. Just vague promises that it will be worth it. Trump has power in both Houses, but a limited term. Over here we have potentially a majority in Parliament against leaving, and it has been established for centuries that MP's are elected to use their own judgement on behalf of their electors, not necessarily go with their opinions if they disagree - knowing there will be another election down the line. On the other hand it seems likely what we have done is permanent and irreversible in practical terms.

I expect to see UKIP making gains. They are a nationalist socialist party.

edit: The leader of UKIP is an Eddie Hitler lookalike called Nuttall. How the hell do you parody that?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:47 am

spot;1505592 wrote: I suspect the core issue is whether the Republican party is a house divided against itself or not. If they all do as they're told by the new Administration there will be a lot done over the next four years.

As for "not only hated so much by his own people, but by the world", you're forgetting Abraham Lincoln. He was only deified after he died. Many in England wanted the British to fight the North once Lincoln's war started.

many in england wanted the british to fight? When did england and britain become synonymous? Joking aside that's not strictly true there were just as many to whom supporting the landed gentry of the south with a slave owning aristocracy was not exactly the thing to do, britain recognised the bellgerent status of the confederacy but not it's status as a nation and slavery was an issue right from the beginning. Besides our economic interests would lead us to favour the north more than the south which is what in fact happened.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:03 am

gmc;1505597 wrote: many in england wanted the british to fight? When did england and britain become synonymous? Joking aside that's not strictly true there were just as many to whom supporting the landed gentry of the south with a slave owning aristocracy was not exactly the thing to do, britain recognised the bellgerent status of the confederacy but not it's status as a nation and slavery was an issue right from the beginning. Besides our economic interests would lead us to favour the north more than the south which is what in fact happened.

I suppose that's a sign of the anti-slavery legislation being about 30 years old and the rise of the middle class at the time. Electorally they couldn't be ignored and they were beginning to see wider issues as education improved and spread and newspapers took off.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:05 am

gmc;1505597 wrote: many in england wanted the british to fight? When did england and britain become synonymous?

I was spectacularly careful in my wording. The British as a whole didn't want to fight. The workers and owners in the industrial North of England, faced with an American-imposed ban on trade with the Confederacy, wanted Britain to declare war and fight on the Confederacy's side, thereby opening the import of cotton and sales of armaments again. The British had armed forces. The English had no armed forces. Hence the terminology.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:56 am

LarsMac;1505563 wrote: Hillary didn't call all trump supporters deplorable. She was referring to the bigots, Nazis, Skinheads, and other low-lifes that attached themselves to Trump.

I had lots of friends and family members that supported Trump, as well, but they figured out that they weren't the deplorable ones to which she was referring. Well, some of them did. some are still whining about that deplorable comment.

Not what I heard.

It's history now. Just another example of how horrible her campaign went.

One might say, it was "deplorable".

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:12 pm

LarsMac;1505567 wrote: The Constitution was never intended to be the absolute final word on the laws of the US. It was intended to be the cornerstone and the foundation.

There's the problem as I can't comprehend how the Constitution as the basic law of the land would not be the final word.

I'm no lawyer or scholarly historian. The Constitution itself is a very brief document. Left a lot of stuff for the people to figure out.

All the same, there is little doubt one "intent" of the Electorial College was to prevent domination by the more populous states over the less populous. That is consistent with 2 Senators for every state to balance the House which was supposed to represent the population.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:16 pm

Clodhopper;1505568 wrote: chuckle. you know, tude dog, I've lost count of the number of brexiters who argue just like you. I'll leave you to enjoy your President.

It isn't clear what you mean by that, all the same, always happy to give you a chuckle.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:44 pm

It means that while my country hurls itself off the cliff, I'll sit and watch the reality tv going on across the Atlantic. I think it's a disaster movie, you think it's a thriller. Have some popcorn

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:39 pm

tude dog;1505602 wrote: Not what I heard.

We all tend to hear what our beliefs lead us we hear.

tude dog;1505602 wrote: It's history now. Just another example of how horrible her campaign went.

One might say, it was "deplorable".

Can't argue there.

The Democrats self-destructed this campaign. They allowed themselves to believe so strongly in their "cause" that they allowed no thought to the possibility that not everyone was on board with the plan. They saw Bernie as an anomaly, and brushed him aside. They simply ignored Trump, and dismissed his followers.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:46 pm

Clodhopper;1505606 wrote: It means that while my country hurls itself off the cliff, I'll sit and watch the reality tv going on across the Atlantic. I think it's a disaster movie, you think it's a thriller. Have some popcorn

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:26 pm

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 5:43 pm

hehehehe

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:27 am

I was puzzled while I was watching, but it would seem there's nobody yet explaining what triggered the military invasion of the podium just after President Trump began his inaugural speech. They left a minute after they arrived but they appeared to be surrounding him at one point. What's undeniable is that they were definitely there and very visible.

At the very least they ought to be identifiable, I'd watch an interview with any of them. Who ordered them onto the podium?

- the video clip.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:12 am

From what I've been able to find, they came to deliver umbrellas to the dignitaries behind Trump.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:20 am

In that case they would have been less intimidating, and more suited to the time and place, had they been dressed in Hooters uniform. Guardsmen are not hat-check executives.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:05 pm

spot;1505678 wrote: In that case they would have been less intimidating, and more suited to the time and place, had they been dressed in Hooters uniform. Guardsmen are not hat-check executives.

I doubt anyone really gave much thought to how they were dressed when they asked them to take the umbrellas down to the people who were about to get rained upon.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:09 pm

LarsMac;1505679 wrote: I doubt anyone really gave much thought to how they were dressed when they asked them to take the umbrellas down to the people who were about to get rained upon.It was an order which anyone in National Guard uniform with half a brain would have refused. Their commander had been fired ten minutes previously?

Did we watch Comical Spicer's first go at being White House press secretary yesterday? As usual we will slaughter them all? They're coming to surrender or be burned in their tanks? It was the largest audience to ever witness the inauguration, period? Who will be first to register welovethewhitehousepresssecretary dot com.

eta: damn. https://welovethewhitehousepresssecretary.com/

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:23 pm

spot;1505680 wrote: It was an order which anyone in National Guard uniform with half a brain would have refused. Their commander had been fired ten minutes previously?

Well, most National Guardsmen, and regular military personnel are ingrained with the idea of never disobeying a direct order.

And their boss was actually offered an extension, which he politely refused.

spot;1505680 wrote: Did we watch Comical Spicer's first go at being White House press secretary yesterday? As usual we will slaughter them all? They're coming to surrender or be burned in their tanks? It was the largest audience to ever witness the inauguration, period? Who will be first to register welovethewhitehousepresssecretary dot com.

eta: damn. https://welovethewhitehousepresssecretary.com/

I was blessed with having to work on a rather difficult assignment for work, which took me most of the day. I was, thankfully, forced to miss the festivities.

I did, later, read the transcript of Herr Trump's Glorious Speech, which gave me a much needed laugh.

It struck me as a Twitter Tirade that should have been put to music. Maybe in the style of ABBA? Or perhaps with a Blues Riff?

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:28 pm

It was a scary inauguration all round. I have never seen the name of the Almighty taken in vain so often at such an occasion, they came close to blessing the firearms and missiles. Or perhaps those were other Patriots he had in mind.

Being a patriot is the problem, not the solution.

The alt-brigade are showing their heads:

Kellyanne Conway, a senior White House aide, told NBCâ€™s Meet the Press on Sunday Spicer had merely been offering â€œalternative factsâ€, a phrase that was received with widespread astonishment.

Guardian

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:26 pm

spot;1505680 wrote: It was an order which anyone in National Guard uniform with half a brain would have refused.

Yup, half a brain would fit. Disobey such an order would bring down a world of hurt upon your head.

This is not a slap at Obama, but it does look stupid.

You see, nothing new under the Sun, or rain.

I don't see any umbrellas in the video and from what I can tell they all had different insignias representing different branches of the armed forces. At least one was a captain whom I would never expect to carry an umbrella.

Seems nobody is offering an explanation as to the cause of this SNAFU.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:32 pm

spot;1505670 wrote: I was puzzled while I was watching, but it would seem there's nobody yet explaining what triggered the military invasion of the podium just after President Trump began his inaugural speech. They left a minute after they arrived but they appeared to be surrounding him at one point. What's undeniable is that they were definitely there and very visible.

How come you have gone all video on us all of a sudden ?

Better they invade their own Presidents space than their regular carry ons.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:33 pm

Snafu ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:36 pm

Bruv;1505691 wrote: Snafu ?

Situation Normal, All F'd Up

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:41 pm

Like SWALK and SWIGGET

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:54 pm

Bryn Mawr;1505692 wrote: Situation Normal, All F'd Up

I should get out more.

I would have expected better from the doggon Tude

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:40 pm

tude dog;1505689 wrote: Yup, half a brain would fit. Disobey such an order would bring down a world of hurt upon your head.

This is not a slap at Obama, but it does look stupid.

You see, nothing new under the Sun, or rain.

I don't see any umbrellas in the video and from what I can tell they all had different insignias representing different branches of the armed forces. At least one was a captain whom I would never expect to carry an umbrella.

Seems nobody is offering an explanation as to the cause of this SNAFU.

Yeah, it is a puzzlement. The umbrella story was the only thing I could find, to date that even attempted to explain.

The question has been asked on quite a few forums, and news sites, and yet, no viable explanation has been put forth.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:56 pm

Is Sean Spicer going to refuse to accept questions at the White House press briefings indefinitely, or was it just this weekend?

And was he wearing a ballistic vest under that shirt yesterday when the photo was taken?

He also warned, â€œweâ€™re going to hold the press accountableâ€, a phrase that would be chilling in many regimes around the world.

[...] Spicer was brash, loud and combative, entirely in sync with his boss, who earlier in the day told an audience at CIA headquarters that he had â€œa running war with the mediaâ€. He wrapped up after five minutes and marched off, ignoring a cacophony of shouted questions. The dissatisfaction on faces of reporters on the front row spoke volumes.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ous-period

The Turkish approach to domestic politics last year was to stage a blatantly fake coup after which arresting a third of a million political opponents and secular news reporters left the Administration with a less troubled path forward. I won't be surprised if things go that way in America this year.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:03 pm

Bruv;1505695 wrote: I should get out more.

I would have expected better from the doggon Tude

It seemed to fit.

List of military slang terms

SNAFU[edit]

Main article: SNAFU

SNAFU, which stands for the sarcastic expression situation normal: all ****ed up, is a well-known example of military acronym slang. It is sometimes bowdlerized to all fouled up or similar.[1] It means that the situation is bad, but that this is a normal state of affairs. It is typically used in a joking manner to describe something that's working as intended. The acronym is believed to have originated in the United States Marine Corps during World War II.[citation needed]

I considered FUBAR but that one didn't seem to fit that situation.

FUBAR[edit]

Not to be confused with Foobar.

For other uses, see FUBAR (disambiguation).

FUBAR (****ed up beyond all recognition/any repair/all reason), like SNAFU and SUSFU, dates from World War II. The Oxford English Dictionary lists Yank, the Army Weekly magazine (1944, 7 Jan. p. 8) as its earliest citation: "The FUBAR squadron. â€¥ FUBAR? It means 'Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition."[8]

Doesn't get any better than that.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:55 pm

About SNAFU.........I was forgetting the rich vein of US military euphemisms.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:02 pm

Photographs of the National Mall in Washington DC and public transport figures for the city cast serious doubt on Sean Spicerâ€™s angry insistence that Donald Trump drew â€œthe largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globeâ€.

You can see the crowd is tending to go to the Right.....although it could be the Photo shopper's sense of humour. HERE

That might be the official White House opinion.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:54 pm

Bruv;1505702 wrote: About SNAFU.........I was forgetting the rich vein of US military euphemisms.

I know about POETS day .................................... P*** Of Early Tomorrow's Saturday. :yh_rotfl

oops...........

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:14 am

This assault on the Press reporting the truth is the most worrying thing I've seen so far from an overseas perspective. It' seems to be just being carried over from campaigning to governing without a hitch. "Report what's in his heart," "alternative facts," this could be North Korea. And I'm not joking.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:41 am

I've seen references to Pyongyang DC. If they become popular I may take to referring to President Trump as the Dear Leader.