What would it take?

:doh:

Lol...don't worry, hopefully we can start talking about stuff that really matters as the first 100 days begins. If trump effs up with policy pushes i won't give him any slack. I just really the playing field was level when it comes to coverage, lotta bad info out there...

Strange times.

Well gosh. I guess our next president should win dancing with stars. First?!? He's the commander in chief not a pop star. I know that's hard for obama fans to grasp since he had the roles reversed in his mind and actions.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

He's not supposed to be a pop star? I'm confused, his social media habits seem to imply he wants to be treated like a pop star.

I agree that facts are indisputable.
One fact is that there is no exact or physical count.
One fact is that due to clouds there is not the overhead view that counts are taken from.
One fact is that Trump's inauguration via Nielsen's ratings were the second highest and online/streaming viewership was an all time high.

These are alternative facts to the drumbeat the media ran with one photo and their standing narrative against Trumps presidency

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

1) I agree on fact one
2)Fact two is wrong .Back and I think it was a Beach Boy concert the formula the National Parks Dept use to do head counts on the Mall was reveled and I do agree there is no "actual" numbers count they can most certainly do very good estimations.Each section on the Mall can hold x amount of people and such.While it was over cast right around Oath time it lighten up a good amount.
3) Considering the improvement in tech knowledge of course more people were able to watch it in ways that didn't exist even eight years ago.All so does'nt mean people were watching.I kind of use the train wreck theory,people know what's coming but still want to see the car and the train collide.

Dennis Kucinich (democratic Pres.primary Candidate 2004&2008) response to Trump's inaugural address

https://m.facebook.com/denniskucinich/posts/10154527639948218

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Not really defending the 2 words but the coverage. Did u see the interview? chuck Todd got bitch slapped. But yet I'm forced to defend 2 words? Psss please...come on bro.

I've stated before, it was dumb to defend a crowd by trump and the administration...but we know what's going on, it was a clear smear campaign be the media to denigrate the incoming administration. why did the media run the side by side comparison to Obama's inaugural crowd?

Its interesting to see the confrontation with the media...I think a lot of folks will be saying it's about time. But I don't know if it necessarily smart, because we can see with just 2 words what can happen.



I see you are taking "alternative facts" to heart.

This is only tangentially related to Trump.

The 8 richest billionaires (maybe Gates reaches TRILLIONAIRE status) are:
Warren Buffett Democrat, has supported republicans
Microsoft's Bill Gates, staunch democrat
Inditex founder Amancio Ortega,
Mexico's Carlos Slim,
Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos, staunch democrat
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg independent anti-trump
Oracle's Larry Ellison staunch democrat
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg republican turned democrat

Why is it that the Mega rich, in fact the 6 US members of that group could probably solve healthcare or social security or medicare by themselves, are democrats when republicans so often are labeled as the party of the rich?

I am not disparaging these men, I know they all have a charitable side, but it amazes me that democrats have the rich in hollywood, the super rich, and the media elite as their supporters and yet the very poor somehow think these people are on their side.

And probably a little more on point.

This is a Fortune article dated Jan 16th 2017, so before Trump is even in office.
World's 8 Richest Men Are as Wealthy as Half the World's Population | Fortune.com (http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/)

From the article:
Just eight individuals, all men, own as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's population, Oxfam said on Monday
...
In 2010, by comparison, it took the combined assets of the 43 richest people to equal the wealth of the poorest 50%, according to the latest calculations.
{insert a video titled - these execs became billionaires after Donald Trump was elected}

I know this is in the world, but still who was president and whose tax policies were in place for those 6 years?
...
While many workers struggle with stagnating incomes, the wealth of the super-rich has increased by an average of 11% a year since 2009.
...
SO what does this magazine article conclude, given that currently we have tax rates more in line with the democratic party ideals rather than the lower tax ideals of the republican party. Well you guessed it, we can't leave it to the rich to spend their wealth, we must enforce it ourselves:
Bill Gates, the world's richest man who is a regular at Davos, has seen his fortune rise by 50% or $25 billion since announcing plans to leave Microsoft (MSFT, +0.89%) in 2006, despite his efforts to give much of it away.
While Gates exemplifies how outsized wealth can be recycled to help the poor, Oxfam believes such "big philanthropy" does not address the fundamental problem.
"If billionaires choose to give their money away then that is a good thing. But inequality matters and you cannot have a system where billionaires are systematically paying lower rates of tax than their secretary or cleaner," Lawson said.

Because high tax rates mean less disparity right? Oh wait? maybe not...

It's a crazy article, and for the record I think it's crazy that 8 men can have the wealth of half the world, but I find it even more interesting that the 6 of those men that live in the US VEHEMENTLY opposed Donald Trump, and ACTIVELY supported Hillary Clinton.

Given that their wealth went up 11% a year under President Obama, I can certainly understand why they would want Hillary to take his place.

I feel like the nonsense about crowd size and whatever his latest nonsensical bs is about is so we ignore the real issues, like eliminating the fee cut that the Dept of HUD announced, or letting the REINS act sail through Congress this time around. If he constantly puts out a cycle of bullshit, it will distract us from the issues that will need to be paying attention to. Maybe we won't even notice that he signed another order putting the Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines back on track. Has he even produced paperwork showing that he got rid of his investments in those? Has he even produced any paperwork saying he's gotten rid of control of his businesses? I know his press secretary said he did but nobody has produced any paperwork showing it's actually done.

mooby quit trying to delegitimize his presidency by asking for fact. im sure all of those " alternative facts" says he has