Will this be considered a stain in American history?

[alexw]

Im still not getting what you are trying to say here. 250k. Alright. Those estimates are off. Look at Clintons second Inauguration. Estimated 250k



You think that is anywhere close to Trumps crowd size? Id wagerthat 10 times the amount of people that watched Clinton, watched Trump. It wouldn't even be close. You are trying to use crowd size as a comparison to what exactly?

How many viewers online did Clinton have? Think close to... 0? Like I've said too many times to count now. Trying to compare Obama to Trump in terms of inauguration sizes makes you look weak.

I'm not comparing Trump to Obama. I'm telling Trumpists to stop lying about the numbers. Oh and post me overhead photos of Clinton vs Trump. No more misleading photo's.

[Deleted]

This one is my fav

I wonder where he will get cheap hats if he starts a trade war with china?

I heard Mexico would be willing to create hats for trump.

[Zeta333]

Hands up I am no expert in the political history of American history of Presidents so perhaps stuff like this has already occurred but from an outsider the amount of crazy happening over Trump is bewildering to me. Protests, riots and seemingly a country completely divided almost aggressively because of one man, it's awfully worrying. Do you think 2016/2017 will be recorded as a stain in your history books? I don't recall seeing as much friction regarding Clinton, Bush & Obama. I understand Presidents usually get negative attention eventually but not immediately

its seriously just the other political side being beyond stupid fucking butthurt that thier person didnt win, this shit wont mean jack fuck. the world isnt ending, we arnt turning into nazis. its just qqqqqqqqq.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing is that neither Clinton nor any of the bushs were alt-right fascists that got into office with racist bigotry empowered by russian propaganda.

So yes, i think it will be a stain in history books. Or "the great new start of america", considering the idea that winners tell history. And if trump wins at the end, history will tell the story from his point of view.

yeh boy did russia make democrats do shady shit, god damn those crafty kgb for rigging clinton to beat bernie.

[HumbleDuck]

Please, PLEASE, give us a lit of said individuals. I'd love to see it. Show me a list of US presidents that fucked our country so bad that it put the world in trouble. This is what I mean by hyperoble.

Its hard to take statements like this remotely serious. Let me guess. You are going to compare him to Hitler, Fidel Castro, Asaad? Give me a break.

I think you are already on a break, and for good

You people are so arrogantly ignorant that cannot even get the historical facts through your skull even when presented to you graphically ...
He is a laying con artist with misogynistic, egomaniacal psychopathic behavior and no respect to science ,equality or progress who already screwed alot of people and already is in violation of Constitution on day one,
But no, you do not believe in facts, or observable measurements, no. It's of course the same as when right wingers thought Obama is gonna lock them up in Walmart and invade the southern states to take their guns and ban straight marriage.

[Thepersona]

Bless you. <3

As a chilean i feel a little safe. Was talkin with my mom about trumps presidency and the only good thing is that we live fucking 12000 kms away from the shit. We can even survive a nuclear armaggedon.
Please.... please skroe you and your conservstives, rally together, and protest trump, do not let him have any bresthing room. We (as a world) need for the first time that your people and the dems act together. Global warming is too fucking important to let this monkey to ruin everything. We now have the bigges forest fire in recorded history in my country, because of the droughts (agw again). We cant let this slide

[ujx]

More denial.... Its estimated that 250,00 attended.

https://twitter.com/ft/status/822565660979036160

http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/how-ma...ndance-photos/

http://www.nbc26.com/news/national/w...erican-history

You cherry pick a lowball estimate so that makes it fact? Truth is, you can't estimate how many people showed up to protest based off a shitty picture showing Lincoln Park.

You have confirmation bias and see what you want to see.

:edit: Just went to that obviously biased twitter you linked. They estimate 500k women showed up in DC. That is nowhere near Trumps inauguration. Save yourself the embarrassment and stop posting.

[Deleted]

yeh boy did russia make democrats do shady shit, god damn those crafty kgb for rigging clinton to beat bernie.

What is the best way to answer to this? Well, let me try:

no bro russia just fcked american dems wif de propaganda for teh alt right dood trump.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong

It was 900.000 on the inauguration party, right.

[Skroe]

His post is definitely out of proportions and downright spiteful.
That said, I consider our alliance with Saudi Arabia an affront, no a sacrilege, to everything the civilization that I belong to stands for. Not only that, we sell them some of our best toys, be it military or tech-items and allow them into the UN, even to head the so-called human rights council which by now (IMO) should be renamed The Saudi Office of external affairs. Alas, our leaders will accept anything from those wahabist thugs for the sake of "dialogue" or "trade". Our leaders negotiating with these people is also a big, fat, greasy stain in US and European history IMO.
I loathe Trump as much as most, probably more, due to personal reasons (it has to do with his stance on physically disabled people). I hope Trump messes up and becomes a one-term president (which is a great humiliation yes?), but by the heavens, may the first thing he fucks up be the West's blasted 'alliance' with OPEC in a spectacular manner.

The alliance with Saudi Arabia is purely pragmatic and based on sound history. In the 1980s it was the US and Saudi Arabia that conspired together to crash the cost of a barrell of oil, which drove the Soviet Economy into a depression. In combination with immense political change in the country, the Afghan War, Chernobyl, and Eastern European anti-Communist movements, the entire thing was destroyed.

Saudi Arabia in other words, as the effective veto wielding member of the global oil supply, is the kind of country we want our our side, or they _will_ be on the others side and used against us.

Secure access to energy supplies is a legimtate reason to have good relations with a country. It's a moral compromise to be sure, but a modest one. That fundamental relationship, as evidenced by how it played a role in destroying the USSR, is worth the downside. Or let me put it another way. If the opportunity cost of partnering with the Saudis to have privelged access to global energy supplies and destroying the USSR in the process was the spread of Wahabbiism, I'd call that a bargain. The former goal is much more significant than the latter problem.

Also, a concrete question, does the election of Donald Trump mean there will one day be an Aircraft Carrier dubbed USS Donald Trump?

In theory there could be, but it's unlikely. The US Navy seems less interested in naming every carrier after every President anymore (Congress can also order it, but they've declined to of course). The current Carrier that is 99% complete is the first in Class Gerald R. Ford. It's succesor, ready in 4 years, is the second Aircraft carrier named John F Kennedy (rather than the first named "William Jefferson Clinton). The first USS John F Kennedy carrier was a historically important ship and retired a decade ago, but the fact that the US Navy looped around to a President who already had a carrier is telling I feel.

Furthermore the third Ford-class carrier's name is to be... "USS Enterprise", which succeeds the historically important USS Enterprise that was retired in 2012. Some in Congress wanted to name the ship USS Arizona. Others wanted to name it USS America, another famous carrier, which ended up being the name of the new Marine's Amphibious Assault Ship class. The funding for the fourth Ford class should begin in the next budget, but a name is a few years out. I fully expect it to be named after a famous World War II ship or battle, or historic figure in the politics or Navy. Another USS Benjamin Franklin, USS Kitty Hawk, USS Constellation or USS Ranger is probable.

At the same time the Navy has started to name other ships after President. The Jimmy Carter is the third, and most advanced, of the Sea Wolf class attack submarines (and is probably the most advanced submarine in the world). That's fitting because Carter was a submariner. The USS Lyndon B. Johnson is the name for the third, final and most advanced Zumwalt Class destroyer. It will be a frighteningly advanced and prominent ship to be sure, but not a carrier.

Bill Clinton is 70. George W Bush is 70. Barack Obama is 55. To be honest, I doubt Clinton or Bush will ever get carriers. Amphibious Assault ships or Attack submarines maybe. And considering the ruinous tenure of Barack Obama lackey Ray Mabus as Secretary of the Navy, considering Barack Obama's "lead from behind" foreign policy, I kind of doubt he will get a carrier any time soon either. Maybe at the later end of Ford class run.

Could there be a USS Donald Trump one day? Maybe. But I'd expect a lot of recycled names for the Ford-class first.

[cuafpr]

to early to tell.

[lockedout]

stating the fact that hardly anyone turned up for Trump's inauguration.

Hardly anyone?

[Thepersona]

Hardly anyone?

You know that you're posting a photo from a different angle, right?

[Draco-Onis]

:edit: Just went to that obviously biased twitter you linked. They estimate 500k women showed up in DC. That is nowhere near Trumps inauguration. Save yourself the embarrassment and stop posting.

Financial Times is biased against Trump? really?

[ujx]

Financial Times is biased against Trump? really?

Care to read the tweets?

[Draco-Onis]

Care to read the tweets?

Reporting the news is being against Trump now? best to stick to infowars then.

[Time Sage]

That's an issue that will never be resolved honestly.

If you believe in homosexuality, you are great! If you don't believe in homosexuality, you are a bigot and a horrible human being. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I personally am not fond of the homosexual lifestyle. Guys that are full of testosterone running around in bras and halter tops talking in octaves that no man could ever hit naturally. Or going to a restaurant with my Wife's cousin who is a lesbian and the waitress says "for you sir" talking to her. I don't think that makes me a bigot. I love her cousin. I have gay family. I don't think of them any less. Sure, I'll make fun of gay family and friends for trying incredibly hard to look like the opposite sex, but I don't have any hatred towards them. Im also against guys who dress like women thinking they have the right to use the womens bathroom because they think they should be there. Now if they had a sex change, go for it. These are just my views, but I promise you, within 5 minutes, someone(s) will be calling me a bigot and a homophobe, etc.

I understand some people feel hatred towards homosexuals and other people accept them, but people will always feel like they do, especially once they hit a certain point in life. This isn't a new problem, especially politically. I do honestly think that at this point, there is no going backwards though. I seriously doubt we would EVER see a ban on homosexual relationships.

- - - Updated - - -



That is how it works. You made a claim as well and I asked you to justify that claim. In fact, I responded to your claim first. Thats why we are having this debate. I do feel like you are using hyperbole and its hilarious. You are pretty much saying that trump will lead us to ruin. You are making an asinine claim based on a campaign where every person since the history of campaigning has started has lied and said anything and everything to get elected.

I am pretty sure though, that I have explained myself. It might not be to your satisfaction, but thats your issue, not mine. Thats the beauty. I don't owe you a fucking thing, and you owe me nothing. So Dodge away brotato!

You're confusing gay with trans or crossdressing. Your opinion on gays is invalid until you actually do some research - signed a gay man.

[Adolecent]

Financial Times is biased against Trump? really?

Care to read the tweets?

Reporting the news is being against Trump now?

Trumps plans for the US and the world are disastrous.

[ujx]

Reporting the news is being against Trump now? best to stick to infowars then.

The banner on the account is openly mocking Trump and you want to tell me there is no bias in their reporting? A laughable lowball estimate of the turnout and the plethora of negative Trump articles don't set off any alarms?

- - - Updated - - -

Trumps plans for the US and the world are disastrous.

Thanks for the hyperbole. I'll be sure to file it next to "Trump is Hitler" and in between "Hillary has a 90% chance of winning".

[Time Sage]

The banner on the account is openly mocking Trump and you want to tell me there is no bias in their reporting? A laughable lowball estimate of the turnout and the plethora of negative Trump articles don't set off any alarms?

You know what banner is openly mocking Trump, his own twitter page which stole a photo from Obama's inauguration because his didn't look full enough.

[minteK917]

You know what banner is openly mocking Trump, his own twitter page which stole a photo from Obama's inauguration because his didn't look full enough.

That is pretty hilarious. I always knew America would eventually elect the best comedian they ever had.

[ujx]

You know what banner is openly mocking Trump, his own twitter page which stole a photo from Obama's inauguration because his didn't look full enough.

That was used before the inauguration. What's wrong with having a picture of people holding flags? What does it matter where it came from?

PS. It's not there anymore.