This topic has been locked by a moderator.
I want to believe this is fake news but who the fuck knows.
The military “may come marching down Pennsylvania Avenue,” Trump told the Washington Post in an interview published Wednesday. “That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, D.C., for parades. I mean, we’re going to be showing our military.”
Trump spoke about his vision of military parades in vague terms, suggesting it was something he might oversee in the future. But according to several sources involved in his inaugural preparations, Trump has endeavored to ensure that his first day as commander-in-chief is marked by an unusual display of heavy military equipment.
During the preparation for Friday’s transfer-of-power, a member of Trump’s transition team floated the idea of including tanks and missile launchers in the inaugural parade, a source involved in inaugural planning told The Huffington Post. “They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade,” the source said, referring to massive military parades in Moscow and Pyongyang, typically seen as an aggressive display of muscle-flexing.
Military flyovers of parades and sporting events isn’t terribly new, but wouldn’t tanks be likely to tear up the asphalt of most roads?
Where were you in '77?
Yeah but Dems suck at midterms.
Plus, they can’t change the congressional district boundaries for at least five more years. By then red states will take more seats from the blue ones, because their populations will have grown at a faster rate, and the House of Reps. is fixed to 435 members. Who knows if the Dems will even legally exist by 2022, if they were to pose a threat to Trump in the 2018 midterms?
I want to believe this is fake news but who the fuck knows.
The military “may come marching down Pennsylvania Avenue,” Trump told the Washington Post in an interview published Wednesday. “That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, D.C., for parades. I mean, we’re going to be showing our military.”
Trump spoke about his vision of military parades in vague terms, suggesting it was something he might oversee in the future. But according to several sources involved in his inaugural preparations, Trump has endeavored to ensure that his first day as commander-in-chief is marked by an unusual display of heavy military equipment.
During the preparation for Friday’s transfer-of-power, a member of Trump’s transition team floated the idea of including tanks and missile launchers in the inaugural parade, a source involved in inaugural planning told The Huffington Post. “They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade,” the source said, referring to massive military parades in Moscow and Pyongyang, typically seen as an aggressive display of muscle-flexing.
Military flyovers of parades and sporting events isn’t terribly new, but wouldn’t tanks be likely to tear up the asphalt of most roads?
Yes:
The military, which traditionally works closely with the presidential inaugural committee, shot down the request, the source said. Their reason was twofold. Some were concerned about the optics of having tanks and missile launchers rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue. But they also worried that the tanks, which often weigh over 100,000 pounds, would destroy the roads.
Yeah but Dems suck at midterms.
The current situation isn’t really business-as-usual, so that might change if the next couple of years are as awful as predicted. Keep in mind there are a lot of new voters who weren’t able to vote in the 2014 mid-term election who seem to be very politically-active now, and tend to vote Democrat. If that momentum lasts, then the result may surprise us.
Moreover, Brian Knight of Brown University writes about the “presidential penalty,” which has historically meant that the party of the sitting president will lose seats in the midterm elections. Pew writes that “since 1842, the President’s party has lost seats in 40 of 43 midterms–the exceptions being 1934, 1998 and 2002.” Including the 2014 midterms, that tally rises, as Democrats lost even more Senate seats.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/10898/2018-mid-terms-could-be-really-bad-democrats-lets-frank-camp
I want to believe this is fake news but who the fuck knows.
The military “may come marching down Pennsylvania Avenue,” Trump told the Washington Post in an interview published Wednesday. “That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, D.C., for parades. I mean, we’re going to be showing our military.”
Trump spoke about his vision of military parades in vague terms, suggesting it was something he might oversee in the future. But according to several sources involved in his inaugural preparations, Trump has endeavored to ensure that his first day as commander-in-chief is marked by an unusual display of heavy military equipment.
During the preparation for Friday’s transfer-of-power, a member of Trump’s transition team floated the idea of including tanks and missile launchers in the inaugural parade, a source involved in inaugural planning told The Huffington Post. “They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade,” the source said, referring to massive military parades in Moscow and Pyongyang, typically seen as an aggressive display of muscle-flexing.
Military flyovers of parades and sporting events isn’t terribly new, but wouldn’t tanks be likely to tear up the asphalt of most roads?
Yes:
The military, which traditionally works closely with the presidential inaugural committee, shot down the request, the source said. Their reason was twofold. Some were concerned about the optics of having tanks and missile launchers rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue. But they also worried that the tanks, which often weigh over 100,000 pounds, would destroy the roads.
That’s what I thought. There are streets in my town big trucks aren’t supposed to go down even.
Where were you in '77?
Yeah but Dems suck at midterms.
Plus, they can’t change the congressional district boundaries for at least five more years. By then red states will take more seats from the blue ones, because their populations will have grown at a faster rate, and the House of Reps. is fixed to 435 members. Who knows if the Dems will even legally exist by 2022, if they were to pose a threat to Trump in the 2018 midterms?
You’re getting pretty close to doomsaying again, but bear in mind that not much will change in these four years and younger generations tend to vote left.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
Yeah but Dems suck at midterms.
Plus, they can’t change the congressional district boundaries for at least five more years. By then red states will take more seats from the blue ones, because their populations will have grown at a faster rate, and the House of Reps. is fixed to 435 members. Who knows if the Dems will even legally exist by 2022, if they were to pose a threat to Trump in the 2018 midterms?
You’re getting pretty close to doomsaying again, but bear in mind that not much will change in these four years and younger generations tend to vote left.
Trump could just propose a constitutional amendment raising the voting age back to 21 or even older. Congress would pass that proposed amendment in a heartbeat, and I think there are enough republican-leaning states to ratify it before the next midterm.
Good news.
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/19/u-s-abortions-are-at-an-historic-low-study-says/
Not-so-good news.
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/18/2016-was-warmest-year-in-recorded-history/
NYT is unreliable.
This is why the right always wins.
Eh, it’s not winning, it’s all just taking one news institution’s word over another for no other reason than they cater to your personal political views. Both sides are guilty and buy right into the line that they’re being sold.
As a result, media becomes more and more politically polarized because real objective news journalism doesn’t sell like sensationalized attack “news,” and as a result of that, our political parties become more and more polarized, no compromises are reached (why would you compromise with someone who is obviously wrong and an idiot, after all), and America suffers.
Nobody “wins” in this equation, except for the people making money off of the people who blindly follow the narrative they offer on their “news outlet.” Until news stops being a business focused around driving clicks so they can sell ad space, this decline will continue. Unfortunately, that’s up to the people to not blindly buy what they’re being sold, and since people don’t like to think for themselves, who knows when things will change.
I understand your argument, but I believe the right is going to come out as the victor in this polarized environment. They control all three branches of the federal government now, so they are in control of how our lives will be run in the next four years.
Click on any youtube video critical about institutional racism or sexism, and it will have a ton of dislikes automatically.
Those dislikes aren’t automatically generated, they’re earned.
I remember an online ad featuring a transgender kid and it has 25,000 dislikes vs. about 300 likes.
The same kid who said that all white people are racist, all men are misogynistic and all cisgender people are transphobic?
The most hated channels on that site are MTV news and Feminist Frequency, while the most popular channels are the likes of Sargon Of Akkad and TheAmazingAtheist, which spend most of their time “debunking” leftist opinions.
Leftism does not equal identity politics. Those two people you mentioned, believe it or not, are leftists.
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/18/2016-was-warmest-year-in-recorded-history/
Keep in mind that “recorded history” is only like .0000004% of earth’s existence.
I mean seriously, Obama brought more wars than W. Bush???
He didn’t end any of them effectively as he promised. There was certainly no less war under Obama than G. W. Bush
He said “He only brought more wars than Bush” He didn’t just say there was no less war, he said there was more.
I know it’s going to be historic. The man is funny AND seems to be efficient. Obama had good speeches but without intelligent actions speeches are worthless, and so are Obama’s 8 years: worthless. He only brought more wars than Bush and let ISIS spread. So yeah, thanks Obama, really… won’t miss you…
Do you complain about your own country’s leaders this much?
I do.
The guy is right.
He was elected as some kind of modern messiah figure and carried on bombing the middle east and torturing people. He is was as effective as a leader as Bush (as in he was a figure head with very little real influence).
David Cameron however had real power. He assumed he would win Brexit and silence the eurosceptics in his party for a generation and lost the UK probably trillions. Bush and Obama are fake news.
Cameron is a really evil dick and Theresa May is the g-spot of evil.How do you come to the conclusion that W. Bush and Obama were just figure heads with real influence while David Cameron had real power??? Also if W. Bush and Obama were just figureheads, just you do you think was really in charge? Congress?
I guess from that, that you think the military industrial complex is really in charge. But I still do not understand why you think David Cameron was not a figurehead.
I know it’s going to be historic. The man is funny AND seems to be efficient. Obama had good speeches but without intelligent actions speeches are worthless, and so are Obama’s 8 years: worthless. He only brought more wars than Bush and let ISIS spread. So yeah, thanks Obama, really… won’t miss you…
Do you complain about your own country’s leaders this much?
I do.
The guy is right.
He was elected as some kind of modern messiah figure and carried on bombing the middle east and torturing people. He is was as effective as a leader as Bush (as in he was a figure head with very little real influence).
David Cameron however had real power. He assumed he would win Brexit and silence the eurosceptics in his party for a generation and lost the UK probably trillions. Bush and Obama are fake news.
Cameron is a really evil dick and Theresa May is the g-spot of evil.I agree with all you’ve said here.
if you say so.
Hardly surprising.
It figures.
I know it’s going to be historic. The man is funny AND seems to be efficient. Obama had good speeches but without intelligent actions speeches are worthless, and so are Obama’s 8 years: worthless. He only brought more wars than Bush and let ISIS spread. So yeah, thanks Obama, really… won’t miss you…
Do you complain about your own country’s leaders this much?
I do.
The guy is right.
He was elected as some kind of modern messiah figure and carried on bombing the middle east and torturing people. He is was as effective as a leader as Bush (as in he was a figure head with very little real influence).
David Cameron however had real power. He assumed he would win Brexit and silence the eurosceptics in his party for a generation and lost the UK probably trillions. Bush and Obama are fake news.
Cameron is a really evil dick and Theresa May is the g-spot of evil.I agree with all you’ve said here.
if you say so.
Knock this crap off. I’m getting sick and tired of it.
NYT is unreliable.
This is why the right always wins.
Eh, it’s not winning, it’s all just taking one news institution’s word over another for no other reason than they cater to your personal political views. Both sides are guilty and buy right into the line that they’re being sold.
As a result, media becomes more and more politically polarized because real objective news journalism doesn’t sell like sensationalized attack “news,” and as a result of that, our political parties become more and more polarized, no compromises are reached (why would you compromise with someone who is obviously wrong and an idiot, after all), and America suffers.
Nobody “wins” in this equation, except for the people making money off of the people who blindly follow the narrative they offer on their “news outlet.” Until news stops being a business focused around driving clicks so they can sell ad space, this decline will continue. Unfortunately, that’s up to the people to not blindly buy what they’re being sold, and since people don’t like to think for themselves, who knows when things will change.
I understand your argument, but I believe the right is going to come out as the victor in this polarized environment. They control all three branches of the federal government now, so they are in control of how our lives will be run in the next four years.
Click on any youtube video critical about institutional racism or sexism, and it will have a ton of dislikes automatically.
Those dislikes aren’t automatically generated, they’re earned.
That’s only because the public is hostile to any challenges to the status quo.
I remember an online ad featuring a transgender kid and it has 25,000 dislikes vs. about 300 likes.
The same kid who said that all white people are racist, all men are misogynistic and all cisgender people are transphobic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zq6Va901ME
So where are the anti-white, anti-male, anti-cis agendas in the above ad? It’s just a teenager listening to music, who happens to be trans!
The most hated channels on that site are MTV news and Feminist Frequency, while the most popular channels are the likes of Sargon Of Akkad and TheAmazingAtheist, which spend most of their time “debunking” leftist opinions.
Leftism does not equal identity politics. Those two people you mentioned, believe it or not, are leftists.
I don’t know how you could be a leftist and still oppose feminism. Or it’s window dressing to make viewers think they aren’t racist/misogynist/etc (aka the friend argument).
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/18/2016-was-warmest-year-in-recorded-history/
Keep in mind that “recorded history” is only like .0000004% of earth’s existence.
I don’t see how this is relevant.
I suppose he’s hearkening to the “Earth has gone through several heating and cooling periods through the eons, so what we’re experiencing now is nothing new or unnatural” argument against AGW.
I guess it ties into the “Earth has gone through several heating and cooling periods through the eons, so what we’re experiencing now is nothing new or unnatural” argument against AGW.
Which is an extremely dangerous attitude to have right now. Science says we have a couple years to prevent a tipping point in runaway climate change. The best case scenario is keeping it down to two degrees for the rest of the century (which will still be disastrous). Under Trump we are headed down the path to a six degree rise, which will jeopardize human existence, according to most climate experts.
I suppose he’s hearkening to the “Earth has gone through several heating and cooling periods through the eons, so what we’re experiencing now is nothing new or unnatural” argument against AGW.
Well ok but if it’s unrecorded history he has no way of knowing that.
I suppose he’s hearkening to the “Earth has gone through several heating and cooling periods through the eons, so what we’re experiencing now is nothing new or unnatural” argument against AGW.
Well ok but if it’s unrecorded history he has no way of knowing that.
Exactly, and there’s way more of it than recorded history.
NYT is unreliable.
This is why the right always wins.
Eh, it’s not winning, it’s all just taking one news institution’s word over another for no other reason than they cater to your personal political views. Both sides are guilty and buy right into the line that they’re being sold.
As a result, media becomes more and more politically polarized because real objective news journalism doesn’t sell like sensationalized attack “news,” and as a result of that, our political parties become more and more polarized, no compromises are reached (why would you compromise with someone who is obviously wrong and an idiot, after all), and America suffers.
Nobody “wins” in this equation, except for the people making money off of the people who blindly follow the narrative they offer on their “news outlet.” Until news stops being a business focused around driving clicks so they can sell ad space, this decline will continue. Unfortunately, that’s up to the people to not blindly buy what they’re being sold, and since people don’t like to think for themselves, who knows when things will change.
I understand your argument, but I believe the right is going to come out as the victor in this polarized environment. They control all three branches of the federal government now, so they are in control of how our lives will be run in the next four years.
Click on any youtube video critical about institutional racism or sexism, and it will have a ton of dislikes automatically.
Those dislikes aren’t automatically generated, they’re earned.
That’s only because the public is hostile to any challenges to the status quo.
I remember an online ad featuring a transgender kid and it has 25,000 dislikes vs. about 300 likes.
The same kid who said that all white people are racist, all men are misogynistic and all cisgender people are transphobic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zq6Va901ME
So where are the anti-white, anti-male, anti-cis agendas in the above ad? It’s just a teenager listening to music, who happens to be trans!
My bad, I thought you were talking about something else. I use AdBlock, so it’s my first time seeing that.
The most hated channels on that site are MTV news and Feminist Frequency, while the most popular channels are the likes of Sargon Of Akkad and TheAmazingAtheist, which spend most of their time “debunking” leftist opinions.
Leftism does not equal identity politics. Those two people you mentioned, believe it or not, are leftists.
I don’t know how you could be a leftist and still oppose feminism.
I know you don’t.
Or it’s window dressing to make viewers think they aren’t racist/misogynist/etc (aka the friend argument).
So everyone is lying about their true political views and only you know the truth, gotcha.
I guess it ties into the “Earth has gone through several heating and cooling periods through the eons, so what we’re experiencing now is nothing new or unnatural” argument against AGW.
Which is an extremely dangerous attitude to have right now. Science says we have a couple years to prevent a tipping point in runaway climate change. The best case scenario is keeping it down to two degrees for the rest of the century (which will still be disastrous). Under Trump we are headed down the path to a six degree rise, which will jeopardize human existence, according to most climate experts.
You mean the same people told us the planet was cooling? Mega Hurricanes were on the way? The ozone layer was disappearing? The oceans would be dead by now? Arctic ice was disappearing? New York would be underwater by now?
NYT is unreliable.
This is why the right always wins.
Eh, it’s not winning, it’s all just taking one news institution’s word over another for no other reason than they cater to your personal political views. Both sides are guilty and buy right into the line that they’re being sold.
As a result, media becomes more and more politically polarized because real objective news journalism doesn’t sell like sensationalized attack “news,” and as a result of that, our political parties become more and more polarized, no compromises are reached (why would you compromise with someone who is obviously wrong and an idiot, after all), and America suffers.
Nobody “wins” in this equation, except for the people making money off of the people who blindly follow the narrative they offer on their “news outlet.” Until news stops being a business focused around driving clicks so they can sell ad space, this decline will continue. Unfortunately, that’s up to the people to not blindly buy what they’re being sold, and since people don’t like to think for themselves, who knows when things will change.
I understand your argument, but I believe the right is going to come out as the victor in this polarized environment. They control all three branches of the federal government now, so they are in control of how our lives will be run in the next four years.
Even though Trump is coming into office with little popularity, the left-leaning media has even less popularity than he does. Click on any youtube video critical about institutional racism or sexism, and it will have a ton of dislikes automatically. I remember an online ad featuring a transgender kid and it has 25,000 dislikes vs. about 300 likes. The most hated channels on that site are MTV news and Feminist Frequency, while the most popular channels are the likes of Sargon Of Akkad and TheAmazingAtheist, which spend most of their time “debunking” leftist opinions. Anyone who doesn’t harbor a far-right viewpoint online is labeled a Marxist who wants to send everyone into reeducation camps. It’s far more socially acceptable to be on the right on social media rather than on the left.
All of the people you listed are on the left. The reason Feminist Frequency and MTV News are hated is because they are full of shit. TAA is an all-out socialist leftist. He just doesn’t like identity politics. Idk about Sargon but he’s not right of center.
The Person in Question
I suppose he’s hearkening to the “Earth has gone through several heating and cooling periods through the eons, so what we’re experiencing now is nothing new or unnatural” argument against AGW.
Well ok but if it’s unrecorded history he has no way of knowing that.
Exactly, and there’s way more of it than recorded history.
Ok, so it doesn’t worry you in the slightest that this was the hottest year in recorded history, or that the 16 warmest years since 1880 have all occurred in the 2000s except one (which was 1998), because there might have been one year before recorded history that was hotter. Maybe.
Ok.