• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Spicer Presser

Surely you're not just now realizing Trump is nuts/bizarre? He's a thin skinned egomaniac. At 70+ years old he's not gonna change.

Weren't you the dude right after the election saying that we needed to give him a chance and that he would become more presidential now that he was president?
 
Weren't you the dude right after the election saying that we needed to give him a chance and that he would become more presidential now that he was president?

I said we needed to give him a chance and stand by that. But I also am fully aware that he's nuts. He was recently tweeting about the ratings of The Apprentice.
 
Still doesn't get it.

No, I do get it. There are a lot of people in this country who want a strongman as president (from the party of "small government" LOL). It terrifies me.

For as much as republicans love the idea of American exceptionalism, this election has really demonstrated that we're not any different than all of the other countries that have allowed complete nut jobs to come to power
 
Are we really surprised that in a town that voted 95% against Trump that the crowds would be extremely small? Is this really news? Here is some more breaking news. If President Obama held a parade in Mississippi the crowd would e 95% african american....SHOCKER! You can argue about what Trump is going to do when he is president, but what you can't argue is that he ran his campaign AGAINST Washington D.C. So it should really be of no surprise that Washington D.C. did not come out to support his inauguration, and instead chose to march for women's rights (which in a way was also a march against Trump based on his history) the following day. Use your brains people. This really isnt that hard.

My post wasn't intended to discuss the size of the crowds, but to mock the fact that Trump and his administration are openly lying about something easily proven to be false. All to soothe Trump's ego.
 
I really have a hard time squaring jhmd's insistence that President Kardashian isn't a Republican, yet dominated the GOP primary, and we all fail to grasp the lessons to be learned from this election. What lesson did the GOP learn?
 
I really have a hard time squaring jhmd's insistence that President Kardashian isn't a Republican, yet dominated the GOP primary, and we all fail to grasp the lessons to be learned from this election. What lesson did the GOP learn?

If my friend JH isn't resonating with you, try the NYT...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/inaugural-speech-dims-gop-hopes-for-a-more-conservative-trump-agenda.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
 
The photographic """"evidence"""" is not timestamped. You liberal suckers invented fake news.
 
Are we really surprised that in a town that voted 95% against Trump that the crowds would be extremely small? Is this really news? Here is some more breaking news. If President Obama held a parade in Mississippi the crowd would e 95% african american....SHOCKER! You can argue about what Trump is going to do when he is president, but what you can't argue is that he ran his campaign AGAINST Washington D.C. So it should really be of no surprise that Washington D.C. did not come out to support his inauguration, and instead chose to march for women's rights (which in a way was also a march against Trump based on his history) the following day. Use your brains people. This really isnt that hard.

The fact there was a major march competing with the inauguration is a big story. I can't remember that happening in at least the past forty years. Not only that but according to crowd scientists, the women's march had three times as many people as Trump drew https://www.nytimes.com/interactive.../womens-march-trump-crowd-estimates.html?_r=0

Using that number, 170,000, Trump's crowd was by far the smallest in the new era of inaugurations. Even Daddy Bush's and W's first drew nearly double what Trump's did. 300,000 each vs. 170,000 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jan/20/inaugural-crowd-sizes-ranked/

Also, his campaign "AGAINST Washington, DC" had nothing to do with the people in the city. "Washington, DC" equals government not the population of the city. I can't believe you tried make this about the people who live there not the government. It's mind-boggling that you would.
 
Last edited:
If you're really asking, then you need to read what I'm posting. He's not a Republican on policy. There is a gulf between him and the GOP leadership in both houses of Congress. McCain and George Will are in a contest to see who loathes him the most. He beat every strain of Republican in the primary by appealing to the parts of America both parties pretended they cared about. And then he beat their asses.

For not the first time, both parties lost and neither has learned from it. Pubs are cramming the streets in anger over it, though.

So republican policy is not appealing to the majority of the country?
 
The fact there was a major march competing with the inauguration is a big story. I can't remember that happening in at least the past forty years. Not only that but accord to crowd scientists, the women's march had three times as many people as Trump drew https://www.nytimes.com/interactive.../womens-march-trump-crowd-estimates.html?_r=0

There is a reason for that. Most parties accept their defeat and try to learn from it and plan on how to recapture Washington 4 years later. Haven't seen this kind of refusal to accept a loss in my lifetime either.

It might be more productive to work with this malleable president to try and get your message represented. Trump does not seem to be influenced by direct opposition. The current approach seems to have little chance of bearing fruit but a good chance of making the losing party feel better.
 
There is a reason for that. Most parties accept their defeat and try to learn from it and plan on how to recapture Washington 4 years later. Haven't seen this kind of refusal to accept a loss in my lifetime either.

It might be more productive to work with this malleable president to try and get your message represented. Trump does not seem to be influenced by direct opposition. The current approach seems to have little chance of bearing fruit but a good chance of making the losing party feel better.

While I'm sure you could find a few protesting for that reason, it would be a big mistake for them to assume the marches were a protest of his legitimacy as president and not a statement that women will not be marginalized by the administration or some of the policies that have been floated by the right going forward.
 
knowell is not going to accept any explanation that doesn't fit his narrative.
 
Sunday morning is usually the most peaceful time on the politics forum as all the strong right posters run off to church. There they get reinforcement of their behind the time views on woman and gays and how it's ok because god doesn't love everyone just good church going christians. Additionally they learn that by being born in America they were blessed by God and that means anything wrong in their lives must be somebody else fault like immigrants or dirty heathen hordes of muslims. With their moral batteries recharged they return to the boards for another week.
 
I imagine that press conference is what Goebbels sounded like.

And for those of you coming to the defense of Trump on this, it IS OK to criticize your president, especially when he and his mouthpiece act like buffoons. This particular instance of denying factual evidence and just making shit up, about something that is really meaningless btw, is a glaring example of one of those times.

It would be nice to see even a scintilla of consistency from some of the more conservative posters on this board.
 
I imagine that press conference is what Goebbels sounded like.

And for those of you coming to the defense of Trump on this, it IS OK to criticize your president, especially when he and his mouthpiece act like buffoons. This particular instance of denying factual evidence and just making shit up, about something that is really meaningless btw, is a glaring example of one of those times.

It would be nice to see even a scintilla of consistency from some of the more conservative posters on this board.

That's what I don't get. If you didn't vote for him, and purportedly don't support him, why are you incapable of actually criticizing him?

It's like the only purpose "conservatives" serve on this board is to try and mock non conservatives.
 
I may have been wrong about Kellyanne's inauguration outfit as the drum major. She might have also been dressed as one of the toy soldiers in "The Nutcracker."

"Alternative facts." This is going to get really fun. I'm presuming that Kellyanne gets paid by the word.
 
Last edited:
Metro just said yesterday was their second biggest day ever after '09 inauguration
 
This is the fake news we've been warned about.

What about this?

We do know a few things, so let's go through the facts. 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. 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. This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe.
 
Back
Top