President Donald Trump has accused the media of dishonesty over the number of people attending his inauguration.

Mr Trump's press secretary said it had been "the largest audience to ever see an inauguration"

He said the new US administration would hold the media accountable.

Visiting the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia, Trump said that one network had estimated a turnout of 250,000 at the National Mall.


WOW I see this the day I get back from Mexico With all the other "Carnage " He see in this US. he and his people are worried about crowd size ? Pictures dont lie ... and he complained to the CIA as well He is the POTUS no matter how many people showed or did not show to his Inauguration

He is nationalistic , Isolationist, narcissistic and has authoritarian tendencies .. you just dont know which one your going to get on a what day this just re enforces what I see and its only day 2

Isn't fascism fun ? Get used to it. Mussolini is smiling from his grave.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You 2 better watch what you say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

democrat rent-a-mobs are always larger...none of them have jobs

It was an idiotic thing to say. What gain is there, to lying about something so stupid and unimportant?

It was an idiotic thing to say. What gain is there, to lying about something so stupid and unimportant?

What I like is that it points out how stupid and unimportant the so called news about the size of the crowds was in the first place.

It was an idiotic thing to say. What gain is there, to lying about something so stupid and unimportant?

This is just the beginning of the show. Sit down and grab the popcorn.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is just the beginning of the show. Sit down and grab the popcorn.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The show started a long time ago.

This is just the beginning of the show. Sit down and grab the popcorn.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, with a phone call, Trump saved hundreds of Carrier jobs, jobs that Obama specifically said could not be saved, and for which Obama mocked Trump for suggesting he could save them.

Do you prefer a horse's azz who can get things done, or an eloquent buffoon?

If that's what we can look forward to for 4 years (adding jobs without adding trillions to the debt), then sign me up.

What I like is that it points out how stupid and unimportant the so called news about the size of the crowds was in the first place.

Agreed 100%. But Trump needs to learn to let these things go, he doesn't need to respond to every stupid attack. He's going to get attacked without pause for the next 4 years, he needs to learn to let some things bounce off him.

Just wait till the bombs start flying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed 100%. But Trump needs to learn to let these things go, he doesn't need to respond to every stupid attack. He's going to get attacked without pause for the next 4 years, he needs to learn to let some things bounce off him.

It's apparently not who he is. He's been doing this for over a year now. It got him the nomination. Then it got him the Presidency. It is, actually, very entertaining.

It exposes the social and political pimples, boils, and blisters in our "system." He's brought out the mad dogs howling at the gates--the women's march with all its ridiculous bombast; the eternally whorish Madonna; the idiotic Black Lives Matter; the self-important motion picture actors who think that because the public "believes" them when they mouth fictional scripts in movies that it will do the same when they mouth phony political talking points; the even more self-important press which has been exposed to be the biased tools which they denied being in the past; and the utterly uber-self-important politicians with their perpetually lying, hypocritical, phony selves accusing him of the foibles they have owned from time immemorial.

Even in this little irrelevant episode, when they pointed out that he was "lying" about the size of his crowd, it gave his spokespeople the opportunity to point out that in the same day one of the news agencies falsely accused him of removing the statue of MLK from some room in the white house, and another had just previously falsely stated that Rick Perry, his nominee for Energy Secretary, didn't know what that office was supposed to do.

It's going to go back and forth like this until the media is able to politically destroy him, or, if not, it will wound itself to the point that its credibility is worse than his.

As eben says, get out the popcorn.

But make no mistake, it's not just a circus performance for our enjoyment. It is the political battle to define "who we are" (as they like to say when Progressives try to paint us with their version) as a nation--a constitutional republic or a democracy; a sovereign nation or part of an overarching world order; a polity of free individuals or worker bees and dependents of the collective.

And, maybe, neither Trump nor the Press realizes that.

In all honesty here... I read something yesterday from Tom Hanks and it struck a chord. "I hope he does so well that I will want to vote for him in 4 years". I will sit back and watch what unfolds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Bigger issue is his press secretary in no uncertain terms Told the press you cover the issues and stories we want you to cover or there will be consequences

then they double down with ‘Alternative facts’

I recall much outrage from the Right about how much Trash was left in 2009 4 million people attended the inauguration and how little the tea party 70,000 people who attended the rally a few weeks later

but they left out most trash cans had been removed for security reasons http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103900.html

The story was covered as was the crowd size in 2009 as it was 2017

No response from the Obama press secretary giving ‘Alternative facts’

But yet once again President Trump has used the office in an attempt to influence what News gets Covered .... and His supporters Love it... thats the Scariest part of all....

And I think they want to increase the press room to allow more "new's people " AKA internet supporters . so they can avoid answering real questions from those sources that wont carry their message ...

Agreed 100%. But Trump needs to learn to let these things go, he doesn't need to respond to every stupid attack. He's going to get attacked without pause for the next 4 years, he needs to learn to let some things bounce off him.

Maybe Obama told him in his letter how to do just that.. Seeing he did it for 8 years :cheers:

It's apparently not who he is. He's been doing this for over a year now. It got him the nomination. Then it got him the Presidency. It is, actually, very entertaining.

It exposes the social and political pimples, boils, and blisters in our "system." He's brought out the mad dogs howling at the gates--the women's march with all its ridiculous bombast; the eternally whorish Madonna; the idiotic Black Lives Matter; the self-important motion picture actors who think that because the public "believes" them when they mouth fictional scripts in movies that it will do the same when they mouth phony political talking points; the even more self-important press which has been exposed to be the biased tools which they denied being in the past; and the utterly uber-self-important politicians with their perpetually lying, hypocritical, phony selves accusing him of the foibles they have owned from time immemorial.

Even in this little irrelevant episode, when they pointed out that he was "lying" about the size of his crowd, it gave his spokespeople the opportunity to point out that in the same day one of the news agencies falsely accused him of removing the statue of MLK from some room in the white house, and another had just previously falsely stated that Rick Perry, his nominee for Energy Secretary, didn't know what that office was supposed to do.

It's going to go back and forth like this until the media is able to politically destroy him, or, if not, it will wound itself to the point that its credibility is worse than his.

As eben says, get out the popcorn.

But make no mistake, it's not just a circus performance for our enjoyment. It is the political battle to define "who we are" (as they like to say when Progressives try to paint us with their version) as a nation--a constitutional republic or a democracy; a sovereign nation or part of an overarching world order; a polity of free individuals or worker bees and dependents of the collective.

And, maybe, neither Trump nor the Press realizes that.

I don't disagree with any of that, and maybe it's time for both sides to take the gloves off so to speak, and see who we are when the bell rings.

But I don't see how it helps his cause, to give his critics (and hell, his supporters) legitimate reasons to be embarrassed.

Maybe Obama told him in his letter how to do just that.. Seeing he did it for 8 years :cheers:

Now THAT is hysterical. Did Obama ever let anything bounce off him? He spent 8 years whining about Foxnews, criticizing Rush Limbaugh by name...

I'm still waiting for Trump to get HIS Nobel Peace prize.

Heck, if Obama can get one just for being a black president without having done one thing to earn it, surely Trump is due one as well?

I don't disagree with any of that, and maybe it's time for both sides to take the gloves off so to speak, and see who we are when the bell rings.

But I don't see how it helps his cause, to give his critics (and hell, his supporters) legitimate reasons to be embarrassed.

Trump is a perpetual fountain of embarrassment. He wears embarrassment on his sleeve. And his sleeves are like duck feathers, embarrassment just rolls off and he keeps moving forward. Trying to embarrass him is futile. It is almost an endearing quality. It's sort of like the kid who clumsily swings at bad pitches but keeps trying to hit them all the while being made fun of by the "better" players. You tend to root for the kid, not side with the meanies. Especially if you don't like the meanies to begin with.

Trump supporters didn't like the media long before he came along. The more it rags on him, the more they dislike it. His fight with the media, with the Washington establishment (including Republicans) may well be a plus for his cause, regardless of its embarrassing moments.

What more likely will hurt his cause is if he turns away from it. If he chooses to be "correct" rather than embarrassing, and becomes an acceptable politician who nicely fits in with our ruling crowd.

In terms of actually important stuff, he seems to be getting off to a quick and good start.

Trump is a perpetual fountain of embarrassment. He wears embarrassment on his sleeve. And his sleeves are like duck feathers, embarrassment just rolls off and he keeps moving forward. Trying to embarrass him is futile. It is almost an endearing quality. It's sort of like the kid who clumsily swings at bad pitches but keeps trying to hit them all the while being made fun of by the "better" players. You tend to root for the kid, not side with the meanies. Especially if you don't like the meanies to begin with.

Trump supporters didn't like the media long before he came along. The more it rags on him, the more they dislike it. His fight with the media, with the Washington establishment (including Republicans) may well be a plus for his cause, regardless of its embarrassing moments.

What more likely will hurt his cause is if he turns away from it. If he chooses to be "correct" rather than embarrassing, and becomes an acceptable politician who nicely fits in with our ruling crowd.

In terms of actually important stuff, he seems to be getting off to a quick and good start.

He is off to an amazing start in terms of jobs and stock market confidence.

As to the rest...he can fight the fights that need fighting, without being a crybaby, and without being overtly offensive.

I'd rather have an effective jerk than a nice guy who can't do anything right.

Just wait till the bombs start flying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm worried about you Nebe



We all know how Donald exaggerates, who cares
he has an ego, that is why he cares

Now THAT is hysterical. Did Obama ever let anything bounce off him? He spent 8 years whining about Foxnews, criticizing Rush Limbaugh by name...

you have to kidding you think a comment like this Obama admitted in a softball interview with Rolling Stone that he “disagrees” with Fox News. No shock there, but added he believes Fox has a “destructive viewpoint.”

is the same your press guy attacking the press corps ??

seems the hate is still strong to even make that comparison..

Trumps policy is to discredit the press and media who he see's as a threat and Obama's was his opinion (no policy)

one is far more dangerous than the other and if you dont know which is and why I cant help


Found these points on line.. they apply to this issue very well seeing many have forgot the rights behavior towards the 43r and 44th POTUS

many called him a muslim ,stated he wasn't born here ,people on the street carried pictures of him as Hitler, openly stated to oppose him at every turn ,

now the right want us to be tolerant move forward denounce protesters get over it accept it

now its your turn to tolerate the ridicule make no mistake every single thing that goes wrong in our country in Now Trumps Fault as mush as many thought it was Obamas

63788

And here's the crowd at Hillary's Inauguration LOL

you have to kidding you think a comment like this Obama admitted in a softball interview with Rolling Stone that he “disagrees” with Fox News. No shock there, but added he believes Fox has a “destructive viewpoint.”

is the same your press guy attacking the press corps ??

seems the hate is still strong to even make that comparison..

Trumps policy is to discredit the press and media who he see's as a threat and Obama's was his opinion (no policy)

one is far more dangerous than the other and if you dont know which is and why I cant help


Found these points on line.. they apply to this issue very well seeing many have forgot the rights behavior towards the 43r and 44th POTUS

many called him a muslim ,stated he wasn't born here ,people on the street carried pictures of him as Hitler, openly stated to oppose him at every turn ,

now the right want us to be tolerant move forward denounce protesters get over it accept it

now its your turn to tolerate the ridicule make no mistake every single thing that goes wrong in our country in Now Trumps Fault as mush as many thought it was Obamas

"you have to kidding you think a comment like this Obama admitted in a softball interview with Rolling Stone that he “disagrees” with Fox News"

Ummm...I hate to break it to you, but that is FAR from the only comment that Obama made about Foxnews. He whined about them non-stop, he kicked them off his plane when campaigning in 2008. He also excluded 2 other outlets that endorsed John McCain. You know, because of tolerance and such.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=6156794&page=1


Here, Obama tried to exclude Foxnews from the pool of networks that shares costs of covering the White House. This was so outrageous, even the other networks which love Obama, stood up for Foxnews.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tipping-point-white-house-press-pool-stands-up-for-fox-news/

Where do you get your news, if you genuinely believe that he only took one shot at Foxnews in 8 years?

Obama had every TV station except one, rooting for him. That wasn't good enough, all he did was whine about Foxnews.

Obama was a very thin-skinned, vindictive man who had zero tolerance for anyone who disagreed with him. We are bitter clingers, Foxnews was out to get him, blah blah blah.

you have to kidding you think a comment like this Obama admitted in a softball interview with Rolling Stone that he “disagrees” with Fox News. No shock there, but added he believes Fox has a “destructive viewpoint.”

is the same your press guy attacking the press corps ??

seems the hate is still strong to even make that comparison..

Trumps policy is to discredit the press and media who he see's as a threat and Obama's was his opinion (no policy)

one is far more dangerous than the other and if you dont know which is and why I cant help


Found these points on line.. they apply to this issue very well seeing many have forgot the rights behavior towards the 43r and 44th POTUS

many called him a muslim ,stated he wasn't born here ,people on the street carried pictures of him as Hitler, openly stated to oppose him at every turn ,

now the right want us to be tolerant move forward denounce protesters get over it accept it

now its your turn to tolerate the ridicule make no mistake every single thing that goes wrong in our country in Now Trumps Fault as mush as many thought it was Obamas

"Trumps policy is to discredit the press and media who he see's as a threat and Obama's was his opinion (no policy)"

Obama was not just offering opinion. He tried to prevent Foxnews from doing it's job. That's an attack on the freedom of the press, and that's why Fox's competition stood up to Obama's totalitarian inclinations and told him that he couldn't do that. He was most certainly doing more than offering his opinion. And if you ihtnk those actions are no different than stating an opinion, perhaps you are the one who can't be helped.

You cannot repudiate me by posting evidence that Trump is a jerk, because I am not denying that. We agree on that. Where we disagree, is that you are fine with it, when Obama does the same things. Just like this women's rights march, none of those women care what Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy did, but they are horrified about what Trump said. So it's OK when Democrats objectify women, it's only an issue when Republicans do it? It's a joke.

Some hear only what they choose to hear. Then pretend to be well informed. Then they open their keyboard and provide proof of their ignorance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"you have to kidding you think a comment like this Obama admitted in a softball interview with Rolling Stone that he “disagrees” with Fox News"

Ummm...I hate to break it to you, but that is FAR from the only comment that Obama made about Foxnews. He whined about them non-stop, he kicked them off his plane when campaigning in 2008. He also excluded 2 other outlets that endorsed John McCain. You know, because of tolerance and such.

WOW one plane ride what a conspiracy

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=6156794&page=1




Here, Obama tried to exclude Foxnews from the pool of networks that shares costs of covering the White House. This was so outrageous, even the other networks which love Obama, stood up for Foxnews.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tipping-point-white-house-press-pool-stands-up-for-fox-news/

Where do you get your news, if you genuinely believe that he only took one shot at Foxnews in 8 years?

Obama had every TV station except one, rooting for him. That wasn't good enough, all he did was whine about Foxnews.

Obama was a very thin-skinned, vindictive man who had zero tolerance for anyone who disagreed with him. We are bitter clingers, Foxnews was out to get him, blah blah blah.

PS ^^^^ First of all, Fox omitted the fact that it was the Treasury Department that handled the interviews, not the White House.

As i said the hate is deep with you! and your missing the Point Trump is After all Media .... and it is His policy.......

"You tell people a lie 3 times, they will believe anything. You tell people what they want to hear, play to their fantasies. Then you close the deal."

These are the words of Donald Trump (The Art of the Deal)
----

Some hear only what they choose to hear. Then pretend to be well informed. Then they open their keyboard and provide proof of their ignorance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

... what a surprise care to comment on the the topic or just another drive by our local Internet Troll ?

"Trumps policy is to discredit the press and media who he see's as a threat and Obama's was his opinion (no policy)"

Obama was not just offering opinion. He tried to prevent Foxnews from doing it's job. That's an attack on the freedom of the press, and that's why Fox's competition stood up to Obama's totalitarian inclinations and told him that he couldn't do that. He was most certainly doing more than offering his opinion. And if you ihtnk those actions are no different than stating an opinion, perhaps you are the one who can't be helped.

You cannot repudiate me by posting evidence that Trump is a jerk, because I am not denying that. We agree on that. Where we disagree, is that you are fine with it, when Obama does the same things. Just like this women's rights march, none of those women care what Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy did, but they are horrified about what Trump said. So it's OK when Democrats objectify women, it's only an issue when Republicans do it? It's a joke.


We are dealing with the Now.. you cant repudiate me as well by posting evidence of others short comings as an excuses for the justification to Defend The Trump Administration



Trumps Press Secretary and Trump himself said they are at war with the media

Yet White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged to Fox News’ White House Correspondent Major Garrett that a low level Treasury staffer made a mistake in attempting to exclude Fox from the pool interviews.

And from this you conclude the following

"He tried to prevent Foxnews from doing it's job. That's an attack on the freedom of the press, and that's why Fox's competition stood up to Obama's totalitarian inclinations"

but Have Zero issues with Trumps Press Secretary statements Or Trumps comments about the media Shocking

Just wait till the bombs start flying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



Madonna ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

... what a surprise care to comment on the the topic or just another drive by our local Internet Troll ?

Wayne, your contempt and hate have made discussions with you an exercise in futility. I will be satisfied with an occasional snipe,sorry if this displeases you. I know you like to dictate the boundaries but this is my way of contributing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Madonna ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mostly from the Raiders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wayne, your contempt and hate have made discussions with you an exercise in futility. I will be satisfied with an occasional snipe,sorry if this displeases you. I know you like to dictate the boundaries but this is my way of contributing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All you had to say is that you dont like a vision of the world that does not mirror your own... thats not contempt , as for discussions I have had none with you. I am sorry if you consider calling you out on your Snipes for what they .. as dictating the boundaries of the forum I guess we agree to disagree...

as dictating the boundaries of the forum

There's Boundaries???? When the #&!$ did that happen??? :hihi:

There's Boundaries???? When the #&!$ did that happen??? :hihi:

I thought there was something about my not being able to live stream when I log on in the morning in my underwear?

All you had to say is that you dont like a vision of the world that does not mirror your own... thats not contempt , as for discussions I have had none with you. I am sorry if you consider calling you out on your Snipes for what they .. as dictating the boundaries of the forum I guess we agree to disagree...

Feel free to carry on with your nonsense with the understanding that I may contribute on occasion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PS ^^^^ First of all, Fox omitted the fact that it was the Treasury Department that handled the interviews, not the White House.

As i said the hate is deep with you! and your missing the Point Trump is After all Media .... and it is His policy.......

"You tell people a lie 3 times, they will believe anything. You tell people what they want to hear, play to their fantasies. Then you close the deal."

These are the words of Donald Trump (The Art of the Deal)
----

"the hate is deep with you!"

That's true, I have a lot of disdain for certain types of people doing harm, while cloaking themselves in liberal self-righteousness.

Again, you don't have to convince me Trump is a jerk. But the facts also show, that the stock market is way up, and he started creating jobs 2 weeks before he took the oath. He is an offensive jerk. But as far as the stock market and jobs are concerned, it appears that he is getting results.

Obama specifically said those Carrier jobs could not be saved, and he mocked Trump for bragging he could save them. Trump did it with a phone call. Tell me what that says about those two men??

We are dealing with the Now.. you cant repudiate me as well by posting evidence of others short comings as an excuses for the justification to Defend The Trump Administration



Trumps Press Secretary and Trump himself said they are at war with the media

Yet White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged to Fox News’ White House Correspondent Major Garrett that a low level Treasury staffer made a mistake in attempting to exclude Fox from the pool interviews.

And from this you conclude the following

"He tried to prevent Foxnews from doing it's job. That's an attack on the freedom of the press, and that's why Fox's competition stood up to Obama's totalitarian inclinations"

but Have Zero issues with Trumps Press Secretary statements Or Trumps comments about the media Shocking

"We are dealing with the Now"

Oh, that's perfect! So when Obama blamed Bush for everything that went wrong for 8 years, did you ever fault Obama for not "dealing with the now"? So it's OK when liberals criticize retroactively, but it's wrong when I do it.

And I'm not criticizing Warren Harding here. Obama is not ancient history - yet.

That was funny.

"He tried to prevent Foxnews from doing it's job. That's an attack on the freedom of the press, and that's why Fox's competition stood up to Obama's totalitarian inclinations"

but Have Zero issues with Trumps Press Secretary statements Or Trumps comments about the media Shocking

""He tried to prevent Foxnews from doing it's job" The entire press corps apparently agreed with me, because they all told Obama he could not exclude Foxnews this way. I guess you know more than they do about what happened.

"but Have Zero issues with Trumps Press Secretary statements "

I have no issues with those statements? I refer you to post #5 on this thread...I said the following, in reference to the press secretary:

"It was an idiotic thing to say. What gain is there, to lying about something so stupid and unimportant?"

I called Trump's press secretary an idiot, a liar, and stupid. Yet according to you, I have nothing to say about his behavior.

Do you see how blindly partisan you are? You can't even see where I am agreeing with you. Put down the Kool Aid for two seconds, and think.

Hence, the exercise in futility
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I saw it on the internet...it must be true!

""He tried to prevent Foxnews from doing it's job" The entire press corps apparently agreed with me, because they all told Obama he could not exclude Foxnews this way. I guess you know more than they do about what happened.

"but Have Zero issues with Trumps Press Secretary statements "

I have no issues with those statements? I refer you to post #5 on this thread...I said the following, in reference to the press secretary:

"It was an idiotic thing to say. What gain is there, to lying about something so stupid and unimportant?"

I called Trump's press secretary an idiot, a liar, and stupid. Yet according to you, I have nothing to say about his behavior.

Do you see how blindly partisan you are? You can't even see where I am agreeing with you. Put down the Kool Aid for two seconds, and think.


Yes we were on the same page then another comparison thats clearly Bias

Trump : idiot, a liar, and stupid

Obama : totalitarian inclinations

Id be more inclined to agree if you just moved Trump down and Obama up

I saw it on the internet...it must be true!


Welcome : do you believe Trumps False Claims or Everyone else reports

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/22/fox-news-trump-lying-inauguration-crowd-size.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-crowd.html

Id be more inclined to agree if you just moved Trump down and Obama up

My opinion of Trump as a person could not be any lower.

My opinions of Obama are based on the sum of all his actions, good and bad. When someone like you gives him credit for everything that went right, and ignores everything that went wrong, I would imagine he would look pretty awesome in that view. I choose to look at everything he did. In that light, there were some huge failures.

Is Pres Trump going to put an occupation force into Chicago? Seems he threatened something like that.

Give everyone in Chicago guns. There will be 1 month of natural selection and then complete peace.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is Pres Trump going to put an occupation force into Chicago? Seems he threatened something like that.

If the mayor is too incompetent to do anything, and innocent people are being slaughtered as a result, should the POTUS do nothing? Obama did nothing to help Chicago, and the data shows that didn't work out so well.

Give everyone in Chicago guns. There will be 1 month of natural selection and then complete peace.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know that anyone says that handing out guns is the answer. What I would say (and I think the evidence suggests that I am right), is that liberals are wrong when they claim that tough gun laws are the answer. If Chicago tells us anything, it's that gun restrictions don't always lead to less gun violence.

Right now only the non law abiding thugs own guns in Chicago. Arm em all. Then come in to clean up the mess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim it's sounding like I am the conservative here. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Give everyone in Chicago guns. There will be 1 month of natural selection and then complete peace.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like a plan. And then he will have an excuse to send in the occupation force that PaulS mentioned to mow down whoever is left standing. With Chicago totally eliminated, the Repubs will have a good shot (pun intended) to win the Illinois electoral votes.

You guys should tweet Trump with the great suggestions, including the bombs dropping that Nebe mentioned. Then he can get to work misogynistically eliminating women, create race wars to get rid of the other blacks and (with the new expanded definition of racism) and the Mexicans and Muslims. Wow. Win bigly.

If the mayor is too incompetent to do anything, and innocent people are being slaughtered as a result, should the POTUS do nothing? Obama did nothing to help Chicago, and the data shows that didn't work out so well.

So what should the mayor do? Where do most of the guns in Chicago come from?

Can Trump send in the occupying force he seems to be threatening to send in? I woud assume it would have to be the Army as the National Guard prob. doesn't have enough men.

So what should the mayor do?.

Maybe he should ask Rudy...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like a plan. And then he will have an excuse to send in the occupation force that PaulS mentioned to mow down whoever is left standing. With Chicago totally eliminated, the Repubs will have a good shot (pun intended) to win the Illinois electoral votes.

You guys should tweet Trump with the great suggestions, including the bombs dropping that Nebe mentioned. Then he can get to work misogynistically eliminating women, create race wars to get rid of the other blacks and (with the new expanded definition of racism) and the Mexicans and Muslims. Wow. Win bigly.

Maybe the CIA can import some cocaine and release it on the streets of Chicago so thugs can smoke more crack. Then they will start thinning the herds. Wait... they already did that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what should the mayor do? Where do most of the guns in Chicago come from?

Can Trump send in the occupying force he seems to be threatening to send in? I woud assume it would have to be the Army as the National Guard prob. doesn't have enough men.

"So what should the mayor do?"

Gee, I dunno Paul.

Oh wait, yes I do. How about trying what we all know, worked like a charm, in New York City, when Guilani took over? Aggressive policing, tough strict sentences for gun offenders. But that's not the liberal way. Stop-and-frisk hurts too many people's feelings, and it's racist that so many blacks are in jail. So let's leave them alone and bury a thousand innocent black people every year, sacrificed on the altar of liberalism. If we can't abort them all out of existence, we can let them kill each other off.

Rahm Emanuel tried textbook liberalism, and I don't know a single human being who would say with a straight face that it worked, especially now that Spence isn't here.

Rudy cleaned up NYC. That cannot be denied. Why can't we say that out loud, and use his tactics as a blueprint?

"Where do most of the guns in Chicago come from?"

I presume from outside of the city. So what? All that shows, is that gun laws are impotent in the face of how many guns are currently out there. So unless you have a plan to confiscate all the guns currently out there, why would you expect go-forward gun laws to have much effect?

Jim it's sounding like I am the conservative here. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought you were being sarcastic. I was wrong!

I'm no right wing nut when it comes to guns. But I do like the constitution...

Maybe he should ask Rudy...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ding ding ding!!! But Rahm will watch his citizens die to the last man, before he asks Rudy for help.

I'm pro gun. We should all have them. Open carry for all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the CIA can import some cocaine and release it on the streets of Chicago so thugs can smoke more crack. Then they will start thinning the herds. Wait... they already did that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently the CIA plan to thin the herds didn't work. Seems like the CIA just keeps getting everything wrong. Maybe that's why Trump questions their work. Anyway, we are told that Trump and the CIA do not get along. So, I guess he won't be able to have them import more cocaine into the streets of Chicago.

I'm pro gun. We should all have them. Open carry for all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you look a little silly wearing a vagina hat and holding a gun :rotflmao:

"I'ma here to take back ma reproductive rights"

"You'll shoot yer IUD out kid"

Maybe he should ask Rudy...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What would Rudy tell him?

"So what should the mayor do?"

Gee, I dunno Paul.

Oh wait, yes I do. How about trying what we all know, worked like a charm, in New York City, when Guilani took over? Aggressive policing, tough strict sentences for gun offenders. But that's not the liberal way. Stop-and-frisk hurts Wasn't that ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?too many people's feelings that lack of conservative empathy keeps rearing its ugly head., and it's racist that so many blacks are in jail. So let's leave them alone and bury a thousand innocent black people every yeaWow, almost every thread with you comes back to blacksr, sacrificed on the altar of liberalism. If we can't abort them all out of existence, we can let them kill each other off.

Rahm Emanuel tried textbook liberalism, and I don't know a single human being who would say with a straight face that it worked, especially now that Spence isn't here.But it has worked in other places. So pick out the aberration and apply it to all (hasn't this been a very common theme with you?

Rudy cleaned up NYC. That cannot be denied. Why can't we say that out loud, and use his tactics as a blueprint



So what tactics? Stop and Frisk?

Can you post any studies that showed it was effective?

Why did crime start going down in other states and countries that didn't do the unconstitutional stop and frisk?

When did crime start going down and when did Rudy implement stop and frisk?

Did the crime rate go back up after they stopped stop and frisk?

What did Pres. Trump say last night about how he was gonna help Chicago? Grants to hire more police like Clinton did, an occupying army, or was he just going to browbeat the criminals into stopping?

What would Rudy tell him?

https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-new-york-became-safe-full-story-13197.html

https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-new-york-became-safe-full-story-13197.html

Good article. So it was a variety of things that were done. Many of them started before Rudy was mayor.

Good article. So it was a variety of things that were done. Many of them started before Rudy was mayor.

which is why he calls Rudy, since Rudy was there and knows what worked and what didn't. also as you noticed Rudy took the groundwork that was laid out and organized it into a functioning system.

He could call Rudy but he could call a lot of other mayors since the crime rate went down all across the country (and othe countries also). I'm sure that many of the things that those cities did where and are being tried in Chicago. I think Chicago is an aberration.

He could call Rudy but he could call a lot of other mayors since the crime rate went down all across the country (and othe countries also). I'm sure that many of the things that those cities did where and are being tried in Chicago. I think Chicago is an aberration.

You don't think the crime rate went down in NYC, any more than it did anywhere else? Are you incapable of admitting that not all Republicans are evil and stupid? Are you serious? The man saved thousands of lives, and most of the lives saved, were black. He also oversaw the prosecution and imprisonment of dozens of corrupt cops.

"I think Chicago is an aberration"

How can we know that what worked in NYC won't work in Chicago, unless we try? And if Chicago is an aberration, what does that say about, for example, the community organizers there?

"Wasn't that ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating"

DiBlasio stopped doing it. I don't know that anyone ruled it was unconstitutional. What I do know (because I can accept facts regardless of whether or not they support my agenda) is that it worked.

"that lack of conservative empathy keeps rearing its ugly head"

Empathy? For gang bangers who made New York uninhabitable? I'll save my empathy for the innocent people trying to live there.

"it (liberalism) has worked in other places."

In poor, inner cities? In all seriousness, where? Hartford? Bridgeport? New Haven? Baltimore? Philadelphia? Chicago may be an outlier in terms of absolute numbers, it's not all by itself in terms of being an example of urban failure.

"Wow, almost every thread with you comes back to blacks"

OK. So when I say it's bad that blacks are getting murdered in Chicago, that makes me a racist in your eyes. Got it. That's just brilliant Paul.

You don't think the crime rate went down in NYC, any more than it did anywhere else? It may have but it went down across the country. And that includes areas that didn't do stop and frisk.Are you incapable of admitting that not all Republicans are evil and stupid? I've frequently voted for Rs (both Bushs 1st term for example) HA HA, you're the one who constantly finds something that gets under your skin that is done by a liberal and then comes here crying about how evil all liberals are. I've just decided to do the same or to show you that conservatives are the same. Are you serious? The man saved thousands of lives, and most of the lives saved, were black. He also oversaw the prosecution and imprisonment of dozens of corrupt cops.

"I think Chicago is an aberration"

How can we know that what worked in NYC won't work in Chicago, unless we try? So you hate the constitution since it was declared unconstitutional? And if Chicago is an aberration, what does that say about, for example, the community organizers there?

"Wasn't that ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating"

DiBlasio stopped doing it. I don't know that anyone ruled it was unconstitutionalLook it up. What I do know (because I can accept facts regardless of whether or not they support my agenda) is that it workedPls. show me a study saying the drop in crime in NY was bc of stop and frisk. I'd appreciate you showing me any study that showed no other methods would have worked. .

"that lack of conservative empathy keeps rearing its ugly head"

Empathy? For gang bangers who made New York uninhabitable? I'll save my empathy for the innocent people trying to live there.You mean like the people who get stopped and frisked for doing nothing other than being black? You don't seem to understand how being stopped repeatedly for no reason other than being black could get some pissed off.

"it (liberalism) has worked in other places."

In poor, inner cities? In all seriousness, where? Hartford? Bridgeport? New Haven? Baltimore? Philadelphia? Portland, Seattle, NY, Charlotte and many more cities. In a capitalistic society you have some poor, some middle class and some weatlhy. The liberals have policies to assist the poor so the poor support liberals. The conservatives policies are for the poor to lift himself up. Chicago may be an outlier in terms of absolute numbers, it's not all by itself in terms of being an example of urban failure.

"Wow, almost every thread with you comes back to blacks"

OK. So when I say it's bad that blacks are getting murdered in Chicago, that makes me a racist in your eyes. not at all but am I incorrect to note you do bring up blacks a lot?Got it. That's just brilliant Paul.

Any answers to the questions I had at the end of my earlier response?

The reason race was brought into this is because we were talking about the violence in Chicago, where the majority of the victims are black.

you do know its not racist to actually try and have an adult discussion and have the races of people brought into the discussion.


"Over the Labor Day weekend, Chicago hit that tragic number: 500 homicides.

Nearly all of those killed were black men, shot to death in alleys and on street corners by other black men. It's time to have a talk with African-Americans."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-violence-african-americans-glanton-20160907-column.html

Any answers to the questions I had at the end of my earlier response?

Can you re-state the questions? Not sure what you are referring to, but I don't dodge.

"You don't seem to understand how being stopped repeatedly for no reason other than being black could get some pissed off."

I absolutely understand it. But what YOU don't understand, is that it's better to deal with the occasional indignity and be alive, than to be left alone to be murdered.

A judge did deem stop and frisk to be unconstitutional. A judge once also declared slavery to not be unconstitutional. Judges make monumental mistakes. It worked.

Can you re-state the questions? Not sure what you are referring to, but I don't dodge.see below

"You don't seem to understand how being stopped repeatedly for no reason other than being black could get some pissed off."

I absolutely understand it. But what YOU don't understand, is that it's better to deal with the occasional indignity and be alive, than to be left alone to be murdered.But the people in those neighbor hoods don't want it. Frankly, you or I will never be stopped nor hopefully never have to deal with the crime in those areas. Other cities have tried other crime prevention tech. that have worked. I don't know what Chicago has or has not done but why not try the least painful for the people who just want to get up and go to work/school rather than try something those people don't want?

A judge did deem stop and frisk to be unconstitutional. A judge once also declared slavery to not be unconstitutional. Judges make monumental mistakes. It worked.

Can you post any studies that showed it was effective?

Why did crime start going down in other states and countries that didn't do the unconstitutional stop and frisk?

When did crime start going down and when did Rudy implement stop and frisk?

Did the crime rate go back up after they stopped stop and frisk?

Any answers to the questions I had at the end of my earlier response?

Assuming you mean these...

So what tactics? Stop and Frisk? yes, I mean anything that Rudy did to help bring the violent crime down.

Can you post any studies that showed it was effective? Crime went way down during his tenure. In your words, "look it up". I took your advice and looked up stop and frisk, and saw that you were right, a judge declared it unconstitutional.

Why did crime start going down in other states and countries that didn't do the unconstitutional stop and frisk? Probably because starting with Pres Clinton, we finally figured it would be a good idea to start locking up violent criminals instead of feeling sorry for them. I'm not a criminologist. Funny, you see no correlation between who was in charge and the results. I presume then, that you don't blame Bush for the economic crash, nor do you credit Obama for the rebound? Or are you selective with such things?

When did crime start going down and when did Rudy implement stop and frisk? Again, in your words, look it up. You didn't spoon feed it to me, I won't to you. Fair or unfair?

Did the crime rate go back up after they stopped stop and frisk? Don't know. If it didn't, that proves nothing, because crime could still be down because of the people he put away who are still behind bars.

We get it...you are opposed to proactively trying to identify people who are carrying guns in urban areas. Good for you!! Let's just wait for the day when the bad guys all turn themselves in. Until then, we'll keep burying innocent victims.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115820]
"But the people in those neighbor hoods don't want it."

They re-elected Rudy. What does that mean to you?

[Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?[QUOTE]

Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision. "This decision held that a limited search for weapons is permitted when an officer reasonably suspects that the stopped person could be armed. Generally, it established the constitutional practice of what we know as stop and frisk, or Terry stops, by police officers."

The unconstitutional ruling to which you refer, I believe, is that it was misusing the tactic because it was targeting mostly Blacks or Latinos. That is, it was unconstitutionally using the practice in a racially discriminating manner. But it did not rule that "stop and frisk" is unconstitutional.

Detroit can use the "broken windows" theory that Giuliani used (which incorporated stop and frisk) because the city is over 80% Black and a good portion of the rest of the population is Latino. It is difficult to prove racial bias against minorities when the population is massively "minority."

The crime rate has gone down under the present Police Chief, James Craig, who practices the "broken windows" policy. Don't know if it would have gone down if he didn't.

Assuming you mean these...

So what tactics? Stop and Frisk? yes, I mean anything that Rudy did to help bring the violent crime down.

Can you post any studies that showed it was effective? Crime went way down during his tenure. In your words, "look it up". I took your advice and looked up stop and frisk, and saw that you were right, a judge declared it unconstitutional.

Why did crime start going down in other states and countries that didn't do the unconstitutional stop and frisk? Probably because starting with Pres Clinton, we finally figured it would be a good idea to start locking up violent criminals instead of feeling sorry for them. I'm not a criminologist. Funny, you see no correlation between who was in charge and the resultsno, I do see correlations. Correlation is not causation. Clinton put more $ into having cops on the street and that was 1 (of prob. many) reasons crime went down.. I presume then, that you don't blame Bush for the economic crash, nor do you credit Obama for the rebound? Or are you selective with such things?

When did crime start going down and when did Rudy implement stop and frisk? Again, in your words, look it up. You didn't spoon feed it to me, I won't to you. Fair or unfair? Crime started going down nationally years before Rudy was elected Mayor.

Did the crime rate go back up after they stopped stop and frisk? Don't know. If it didn't, that proves nothing, because crime could still be down because of the people he put away who are still behind bars. for 4 of the last 5 years stops went way down (until the program was abandoned) and crime continued to go down. I believe crime went back up last year.

We get it...you are opposed to proactively trying to identify people who are carrying guns in urban areas. Good for you!! Let's just wait for the day when the bad guys all turn themselves in. Until then, we'll keep burying innocent victims.

nm

I don't know what Chicago has or has not done but why not try the least painful for the people who just want to get up and go to work/school rather than try something those people don't want??

Jesus God Almighty.

The reason why you don't try the "least painful" approach (which I suppose would be asking the murderers to pretty please stop), is that lives are at stake. You don't see that? Seriously? This is not a hypothetical debate Paul. When you are facing a life-or-death situation, you do what it takes to win, you don't risk innocent lives for the sake of political correctness or sensitivity. or being non-invasive. We are WAY past the point of having the luxury of worrying about niceties in Chicago.

Let's sit around and have professors and lawyers write papers, and conduct focus groups to see what the people will tolerate and what they think will be too intrusive. Then let's form a blue-ribbon committee to meet with the community organizers, let's let Al Sharpton weigh in on why it's honkey's fault. And let's wait to get Rahm Emanuel's opinion that he is doing everything that can be done, because Lord knows it can't be that he's an incompetent horses azz.

Bill O'Reilly said earlier this week, that if this were happening in an affluent white neighborhood, it would have been dealt with definitively, before the first week was over. And he was absolutely correct. Sorry I brought up race again, must be my latent racism, not that race is central to this issue.

[Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?[QUOTE]

Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision. "This decision held that a limited search for weapons is permitted when an officer reasonably suspects that the stopped person could be armed. Generally, it established the constitutional practice of what we know as stop and frisk, or Terry stops, by police officers."

The unconstitutional ruling to which you refer, I believe, is that it was misusing the tactic because it was targeting mostly Blacks or Latinos. That is, it was unconstitutionally using the practice in a racially discriminating manner. But it did not rule that "stop and frisk," per se, as in the Terry decision, is unconstitutional.

Detroit can use the "broken windows" theory that Giuliani used (which incorporated stop and frisk) because the city is over 80% Black and a good portion of the rest of the population is Latino. It is difficult to prove racial bias against minorities when the population is massively "minority."

The crime rate has gone down under the present Police Chief, James Craig, who practices the "broken windows" policy. Don't know if it would have gone down if he didn't.

Jesus God Almighty.

The reason why you don't try the "least painful" approach (which I suppose would be asking the murderers to pretty please stop), is that lives are at stake. You don't see that? Seriously? This is not a hypothetical debate Paul.

We're not talking the "least painful" to the criminals - neither you nor I care about them other to stop crime. I'm talking about the people who live there. We can implant a tracking device in every person and that would tell us who was close to every crime. I don't think you would agree to that.

The studies I have read think a # of factors contributed to a lowering of crime. And yes, S&F did contribute. But other things contributed more. Some of the factors had nothing to do with policing.

[Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?[QUOTE]


The unconstitutional ruling to which you refer, I believe, is that it was misusing the tactic because it was targeting mostly Blacks or Latinos. That is, it was unconstitutionally using the practice in a racially discriminating mannerAgree and that is why I added something about racially discriminatory. I think a cop had a tape of a supervisor saying they should use it to target Blacks. I also think that it was never appealed bc NY stopped S&F. But it did not rule that "stop and frisk," per se, as in the Terry decision, is unconstitutional.

The crime rate has gone down under the present Police Chief, James Craig, who practices the "broken windows" policy. Don't know if it would have gone down if he didn't.

i think your last statement is the key - it is tough to isolate the cause in a drop in crime.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115828]Jesus God Almighty.

The reason why you don't try the "least painful" approach (which I suppose would be asking the murderers to pretty please stop), is that lives are at stake. You don't see that? Seriously? This is not a hypothetical debate Paul. QUOTE]

We're not talking the "least painful" to the criminals - neither you nor I care about them other to stop crime. I'm talking about the people who live there. We can implant a tracking device in every person and that would tell us who was close to every crime. I don't think you would agree to that.

The studies I have read think a # of factors contributed to a lowering of crime. And yes, S&F did contribute. But other things contributed more. Some of the factors had nothing to do with policing.

"We're not talking the "least painful" to the criminals "

Neither am I. But if people are dying in these numbers, and we want to stop that quickly, the law-abiding citizens might have to accept dealing with things that they might not happen to like. If it keeps more of their kids alive, isn't it worth getting frisked? I don't like taking my shoes off at the airport. But I'm happy to do it. It's not being done because the TSA agent is a pervert who has a foot fetish and wants to gawk at my size 13's.

"The studies I have read think a # of factors contributed to a lowering of crime. And yes, S&F did contribute. But other things contributed more. Some of the factors had nothing to do with policing"

Great. As I said, let's round up all the authors of the studies and have a conference to discuss things over some apple martinis and hot toddies, while a few toddlers get shot to death because we're so petrified of offending someone. That sounds like the liberal, enlightened, sophisticated, progressive, nuanced way to approach it. Meanwhile, affluent white people can sleep comfortably in their mansions, because they can afford to live in a place where these gang bangers know to stay out of.

Let's try a jobs program first. I remember State Dept spokesidiot Marie Harf saying that to defeat terrorism, we need to give these people jobs. In her words, I didn't believe what I was hearing, not because it was stupid, but because her solution was too nuanced for my simple-minded brain. So let's try that.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115830]

"We're not talking the "least painful" to the criminals "

Neither am I. Actually you said "which I suppose would be asking the murderers to pretty please stop)", But if people are dying in these numbers, and we want to stop that quickly, the law-abiding citizens might have to accept dealing with things that they might not happen to like. If it keeps more of their kids alive, isn't it worth getting frisked? I don't like taking my shoes off at the airport. But I'm happy to do it. It's not being done because the TSA agent is a pervert who has a foot fetish and wants to gawk at my size 13's



You are voluntarily agreeing to that by buying the plane ticket. Someone walking down the public street doesn't have a choice in being subject to a search.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115833]

You are voluntarily agreeing to that by buying the plane ticket. Someone walking down the public street doesn't have a choice in being subject to a search.

"Actually you said "which I suppose would be asking the murderers to pretty please stop"

Correct. Which unlike things I would actually endorse, this would involve no inconvenience to the law abiding. Other than the fact that many would get killed in the ensuing bloodbath. But I guess we want to finish where Margaret Sanger left off.

"You are voluntarily agreeing to that by buying the plane ticket"

That's true. But my point is still valid...I don't like taking my shoes off, but I do it, because I am rational enough to understand why it's being done.

"Someone walking down the public street doesn't have a choice in being subject to a search"

I can't argue with that, Paul. All I can argue is that if I was living there, I'd be willing to trade some comfort for the hope of safety.

nm

yellow was a horrible choice

[QUOTE=detbuch;1115829][Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?

i think your last statement is the key - it is tough to isolate the cause in a drop in crime.

Actually, my first statement, which you left out in your reply, is the key: "Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision."

What was supposedly unconstitutional in the case to which you referred is that it targeted a specific race, not that the practice itself is unconstitutional.

As I said, the "broken windows" policy of Giuliani as it is practiced in Detroit cannot be proved to be racist toward minorities since the overwhelming percent of its population is minority. And, after Detroit started using the practice, which includes stop and search, crime went down. You may dispute that the practice is the cause, but you cannot prove it either way. But it is not unconstitutional on the grounds of racial discrimination (unless it targeted Whites) so what's wrong with the policy? If Chicago could do it in a way as not to target blacks, I presume it would be OK. But that would be difficult, if not impossible, since the crime is preponderantly in the Black communities.

yellow was a horrible choice

yes. it was so profound I should of used a different color so all could see it.

You have a lot of perserverance.