US General Election 2016

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-petition-tax-returns-white-house-response-a7538851.html

If Trump's got nothing to hide why did he refuse to release the information?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/20/white-house-website-promotes-melania-trumps-modeling-and-jewelry-line/

halfwise wrote:I misread - he only plans to do it, hasn't done it yet.  I understand the concerns of little guys not being able to fight regulation bigger corporations can, Dave.  Makes it clear why Trump wants to do this, but I think the scale of application of regulation should be addressed, not the ability to address problems in the first place.  Trump need only tell his regulators to take more account of damage to those being regulated.

Fair enough. I'm honestly not sure where I stand on this. As it stands it's a gordian knot of a rule that can be applied to anything or nothing depending on how you read it (which means endless job security for attorneys).  Here's just the basic definition of Waters of the United States under the Clean Water Rule.  
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/clean_water_rule_40_cfr_230_3.pdf

There's actually a very useful list of exemptions for swimming pools, bird baths etc.  which the rice grower's lobby was able to get included in. Unfortunately cranberry bogs, which are often intentionally flooded as well, were not included (presumably because our lobbyists didn't spread enough campaign fund donations around )

(iv)  The following features:
(A) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land should application of water to
that area cease;
(B) Artificial, constructed lakes and ponds created in dry land such as farm and stock
watering ponds, irrigation ponds, settling basins, fields flooded for rice growing, log cleaning
ponds, or cooling ponds;
(C) Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools created in dry land;
(D) Small ornamental waters created in dry land;
(E) Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to mining or construction activity,
including pits excavated for obtaining fill, sand, or gravel that fill with water;
(F) Erosional features, including gullies, rills, and other ephemeral features that do not meet
the definition of tributary, non-wetland swales, and lawfully constructed grassed waterways; and
(G) Puddles.

Edit: And if you're unlucky enough to get challenged, it can typically cost $15,000 to $20,000 in engineering costs to demonstrate that your puddle is really and truly exempt under (iv)G

{{Could be in trouble here if President Trump cant accept simple reality!}}

'President Donald Trump has accused the media of dishonestly reporting that there were empty spaces on the National Mall at his inauguration.
He said the crowd reached the Washington monument as he spoke at the US Capitol, despite photographic evidence to the contrary.'

{{see Malicks photo evidence above}}

{{Dear Lord just saw the first Trump White House press briefing- a 10 minute pointless rant trying to prove Donald Trump had bigger crowds and bigger ratings and the evil press are just unfairly reporting it (he even claims the difference in the Obama/Trump crowd picture is solely due to the white showing up more spaces!) WTF?! This is a press briefing? Ten minutes of whose dick is bigger ranting?
You know its bad when even Fox calls it a 'weird briefing basically over ratings'
This is NOT a reality TV show Trump- hard is it is for the whole world to believe- you really are President- its not about tv ratings any more or how big a crowd you draw!!  


}}}

It does strike me as rather silly.

It seems like everyone's buying into combative behaviour on Twitter now.

{{Trumps press guy just sounds like an angry lunatic! }}

'Spicer claimed that 420,000 people used public transit in Washington on the day of the inauguration, surpassing the 317,000 that used it for the 2013 event. It's not clear where that number comes from. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority compared ridership by 11 a.m. from the past four inaugurations on Friday; Trump's was the lowest.

Ridership for those attending Saturday's anti-Trump rallies, incidentally, was 42 percent higher than by 11 a.m. on Friday.'- Washington Post

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{This is NOT a reality TV show }}}

I'm not so certain. It would explain so much, like that TV guide listing you posted. I wonder....

The President of the United States wrote:...so we should have kept the oil, but okay. Maybe we'll have another chance.

Donald, what are you doing. Donald. Stahp.

{{Map showing yesterdays ant-Trump rallies globally- none in Russia oddly enough! }}

{{That Trump comment on the oil is idiotic!
If the US had declared they were seizing control of all Iraq's oil-

1. It would have de-empowered and instantly fucked any authority the new Iraq govenrment had and instantly lost it all public support.
2. Instant uprising from all sides against coalition forces throughout Iraq. And probably in other Muslim countries where Embassy's ect would be likely attacked in response.
3. Loss of all International Backing as any pretence this was to stop a bad guy would be replaced by the US obviously just stealing Iraqs resources- this would have made the US not only the aggressors and thieves but would firmly have cast them in the Conqueror role. UK and other allies would have no choice but to condemn and withdraw all support as the US would be firmly in breach of every International Law on how to conduct war.
4. US releations in the region with other Arab states would suffer catastrophically, not reducing ISIS but encouraging more to flock to its banner in the face of militant US expansionism and aggression. The aid needed to successfully win in Iraq from neighbouring Arab countries would dry up- the Arab League would form ranks in opposition to the US.



He is a complete buffoon if he thinks that at that moment in time the US declaring it was now going to seize Iraqs natural resources would have been a good thing! }}}

Trump certainly drained the swamp.

(Via The Daily Show)

Looks like a good crowd to me:



You've also got to take into account that a majority of the people in DC and the surrounding states hate President Trump and very few people can afford to take time off and travel to D.C. just for the inauguration. I would have liked to go, but I settled for watching it on TV which was fine with me. I was definitely there in spirit and I know a lot of his supporters were too.

And by the way, since when does crowd size matter all of a sudden to the left? They didn't report on Trumps and even Bernies big crowds, and didn't let anyone know about Hillarys events that would tend to have pathetic turnout.

since when does crowd size matter all of a sudden- Bungo

{{I'd guess since Trumps press guy went nuts and threw a 2 year olds tantrum about it! (As well as being factually incorrect on almost every single point-

Claim: "This was the first time in our nation's history that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the Mall. That had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past, the grass eliminated this visual."
Fact: Photos from the 2013 inauguration clearly show white ground coverings being laid on the National Mall ahead of President Barack Obama's second swearing-in. Reporters who covered the event also recall the white plastic flooring that was laid along the National Mall to protect the grass.
"(The National Park Service) used a similar grass protective layer in 2013," a former senior Interior Department official said.

Claim: "This was also the first time that fencing and magnetometers went as far back on the Mall, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from being able to access the Mall as quickly as they had in inaugurations past."
Fact: The Secret Service, the agency responsible for securing the event, acknowledged that the secure area for this year's inauguration was larger than in years past, but the extra measures included only fences and bag checks and not magnetometers.
"The security perimeter for this inauguration was extended due to lessons learned and world events," a Secret Service spokesperson said. "Security fencing was placed around the National Mall this inauguration. There were seven access points where bag checks only were conducted." The spokesperson added that magnetometers -- which includes hand wands -- also weren't used.
Verdict: False.

Claim: "We know that from the platform where the President was sworn in to 4th Street, it holds about 250,000 people. From 4th Street to the media tent is about another 220,000. And from the media tent to the Washington Monument, another 250,000 people. All of this space was full when the President took the oath of office."
Fact: It's not clear where Spicer's numbers originated, and the White House didn't respond when asked for more details. But the claim those areas were full when Trump took his oath of office is plainly untrue. Photos taken at noon on Friday show wide swaths of white flooring where people were not standing.
Verdict: False.

Claim: "We know that 420,000 people used the D.C. Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 that used it for President Obama's last inaugural."
Fact: Spicer is using a range of numbers that don't make for a precise comparison. It's not clear where the 420,000 figure comes from -- in fact, the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority said the total ridership on Friday was higher: 570,557. But the 317,000 Spicer cited from 2013 was only until 11 a.m., not the entire day. Total ridership on the day Obama was sworn in four years ago stood at 782,000.
Verdict: Misleading.




Thats not a great start for the guy whose supposed to brief the press- he seems to have an odd releationship with reality and truth! }}}}}

Because it shows off his lack of democratic foundation for his thoughts, ideas and policies. Basically, he lucked into a electoral college win, with the largest popular vote deficit in history, after running a campaign completely devoid of policy. (Aside from the "We will build a wall/ban muslims/jail my political opponent" kind.)

You guys...it's starting to become funny.

Lucked into an electoral college win? Oh, man you were not paying attention to all the work he put into those battleground states. He campaigned a lot in the rust belt, and those are the states he flipped. He earned his electoral college victory, the only victory that matters! You don't even get a participation trophy for the popular vote!

You guys just are so mad and you hate him so much that you'll never view him as a legitimate president! There's really no use discussing this with any of you!

{{Hey I dont like the guy but I aint got a particular axe to grind either- he aint my President not my problem. Im just observing from the outside- and his press guy just threw a childish hissy fit over numbers- a dick measuring contest- why? Why did he think that was important at all?
You cant just shoot the messenger Bungo- the guy stood up in front of the world and had a tantrum, got most of his facts wrong,and stormed off in a huff.

Even as a Trump supporter is that the standard you expect? Is that as good a discourse as we can expect to see? As a citizen are you happy with that?}}}

On the continual denial of factually assertable information, I think it's most conscious. The incoming administration want to keep up the appearance of an alternative narrative, even in complete contradiction of the facts. Than you can take your opinion into policy even in complete contradiction of the factual evidence, with your supporters cheering you along all the way. It's all about accountability.

bungobaggins wrote:Lucked into an electoral college win? Oh, man you were not paying attention to all the work he put into those battleground states. He campaigned a lot in the rust belt, and those are the states he flipped. He earned his electoral college victory, the only victory that matters! You don't even get a participation trophy for the popular vote!

You guys just are so mad and you hate him so much that you'll never view him as a legitimate president! There's really no use discussing this with any of you!

The reason I have nothing against any Trump supporter is he didn't run on any perceptible policy platform. People fell for the inch deep celebrity, the rough and ready charisma. So, they ended up voting for a person who will make their lives a whole lot worse. All the while lining his own pockets and the pockets of his billionaire friends. People got played, plain and simple. No reason to judge people for that. They are certainly not the only ones in recent times.

Any one can become a president, or an Prime Minister or, any other head of state. In the old days it wasn't necessarily hereditary to become Queen or King either. My point is, anyone with enough strength, determination & wisdom can give it a shot. Its what comes after these decisions that matter. Its about making the right choices. IL be honest, I don't know if I like being "cap in hand" to America ? Our Government & USA's Government are intrinsically linked. But, no matter what I think, its done & we'll have to see the consequences. Take steps then. I aint no time to chicken out, jump the ship or hide in the sand.

This is just a flash in the pan. I don't see arguments over how many people viewed the election or were present as affecting any of us meaningfully long-term. 

It is rather humorous that Kellyanne Conway said that Spicer had given "alternative facts", but that's Orwellian politics for you.  

But then it's not like this is the first time that an elected official has attempted to put a spin on something to make themselves look better.

When I was a kid I remember the old NFL Champions vs. College All-Stars games. My Dad loved to see how the new talent would hold together when lined up against the old pros.

I'm thinking of the new administration as Trump's College All-Star team - a group of talented amateurs who've never played at the professional level before. Of course the pros are going to pressure them hard in the first quarter to see if they've got game. That's what you do!

The question now is, will they continue complaining to the ref that this is "unfair" or will they come together as a team and put some points on the board? They're not off to a very good start, but it's too early in the game to tell. They've still got a chance if they can stop focusing on the audience and start playing the game.

{{ }}

Its not very smart to play off one group against another, like the intelligence people against the press. Trump said all the press are the biggest liars in history and he 'loves' the intelligence people. its like being at school again. They are adults they can see through this nonsense. what does he want? for the intelligence agencies to turn against the media and silence them? its not gonna happen.