Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump Is Sworn In As the 45th US President (reuters.com)
Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday, succeeding Barack Obama and taking control of a divided country in a transition of power that he has declared will lead to "America First" policies at home and abroad. Reuters reports: As scattered protests erupted elsewhere in Washington, Trump raised his right hand and put his left on a Bible used by Abraham Lincoln and repeated a 35-word oath of office from the U.S. Constitution, with U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts presiding.
Nobody rushing the stage shouting "You are the greatest monster in human history!" while blasting away?
That didn't take long. Keep thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi.
He's been sworn in for almost an hour now and no nuclear war....exceeding expectations.
he is literally just so crazy that it might work.
I'll echo Seth Myers in saying that I've been wrong about him so many times that, if this trend continues, he'll be a great president. He'll certainly be novel. I feel like the marble was just set in motion on our collective roulette wheel.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
All his supporters had to work today.
News for Nazis
This. Garbage like this is exactly why Trump won the election. I hope you're pleased with yourself.
Even if one opposes him, one should be hoping for success.
Absolutely. Personally, he frightens me - I feel like he's too impulsive to wield that much power. But if he does poorly, we all lose. I wish him nothing but success (assuming that his definition of success is close enough to my own.)
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
You think there's going to be ~less~ fraud and abuse under a Trump presidency?
He's got a Dept. of Education cabinet pick who blames a clerical error on her being VP of her mother's charity for 17 years, an HHS pick who passed laws to specifically help his stock picks (and I don't mean made it easier to trade stocks - he bought stocks and then helped pass laws that made those company's stock prices go up), and a pick for Sec State who wants to reduce sanctions on Russia so his former company, Exxon (they're tiny, you might not have heard of them), can get billions of dollars worth of investment off the ground there, also helping his stock prices.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Bill Clinton was sitting near the font and there were several women within hands reach (not including his wife obv.).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It amazes me that people continue to believe Trump is impulsive. There's nothing impulsive about anything Trump does; it's all extremely calculated. If I didn't know better I was say the press were in collusion to spread that myth in order to make people underestimate Trump, but as usual Occam's razor applies and the press are just full of idiots.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Im Irish and from what I've seen, there has been an enormous smear campaign against him especially from CNN and all the way back to Jeb Bush who tried to destroy him and fell flat on his face. There's nothing wrong with putting your country first and America's prosperity is good for Europe. My only concern is that he has establishment enemies, liberal extremelist enemies, and radical islamic fundamentalist enemies. The secret service need to be up to the task. I believe he is a good man for the most part.
The U.S. is almost equally divided after every Presidential election. Why is it that this phrase is only trotted out when a Republican is sworn in?
I'm also quite certain that Trump isn't at all likely to invade Russia heading into a winter, so there is that, too.
I think my major concern with the next few years is that he's a bit of a loose cannon. You don't want a loose cannon who's obviously quite sensitive when pushed on things negotiating with other countries or making impulsive decisions that are hard to undo. I doubt he'd start a war (intentionally) but I really think he has to lay off the late-night Twitter. Telegraphing exactly what bothers you to your adversaries isn't a smart move. Sure, you can argue it's all a show, but some of the anger he's displayed with the press, his critics, etc. show that it's very hard to hide his feelings and just keep quiet.
Here's what I'm mainly worried about -- now that Trump's President, the gloves come off of every single loud-mouthed, opinionated angry citizen who loves to moan and complain. By providing an example of "acceptable" behavior via his constant personal attacks on people, I think he's going to signal to everyone that they no longer need to be civil to one another. I know a lot of people who just aren't happy unless they're railing loudly against anyone and anything. Having that be the starting point for any discussion or debate for the next 4 or 8 years is going to lead to further retrenchment of people into their respective camps. I for one can't stand engaging with people who come out swinging, looking for a fight on every little thing...it's just not a personality type I'm interested in dealing with. The world's complex enough already and life's short, so why waste processor cycles arguing pointlessly?
One thing I did like about the Obama years was that he was a very approachable President. Even when the political rancor was at its worst, with a few exceptions he took the high road in these arguments. I doubt we're going to see that very much anymore -- it's going to be years of angry press conferences and sound bites.
I switched on the radio to hear the evening PM programme (I live in the UK).
You didn't need to tell us where you lived. We knew by your ridiculous spellinge.
The United States is three times the size of India.
If you're talking about population. India is by far the world's largest democracy.
If you're talking about land size. Canada is the world's largest democracy. (unless you consider Russia democratic- then it is).
If you're talking about weight of the average person then... yes... in that scenario, the US is the largest democracy.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
So you think Israel should just unilaterally abandon the Two STate Solution and start colonizing Palestinian territory? I'm generally a supporter of Israel, but those illegal settlements are deliberately provocative.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But he won the game. And that was the point. And had it been about the popular vote. Trump would of campaigned differently, focused only on the large cities. And since he would of got almost all of the rural votes by default, he'd only have to swing a few points in a couple of cities. And he could of easily won the popular vote.
But what point is there in winning a few million more votes in California to be popular if it doesn't help you get elected?
Why would we want to do that? We want all power up at the top, not at the bottom, and invested in one man. We almost got there with Obama, and all the sycophantic supporters who saw no wrong in anything he did, until Trump got elected, promising to do ... the exact same things Obama did.
People like their tyrants, and hate the other guy's tyrants. I hate tyrants, and don't want all powerful government power pushed to one guy. But that seems to be what the Republicrats and Demicans keep pushing for.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No, he won because the Democratic Party is too busy tripping over their hypocritical statements and actions. You know, the party of inclusion that can't wait to have 60+ sitting congresspersons "boycott" the inauguration of the president that they now have to work with. Their candidate for president was even there, and tweeting about working together. Yet these petty and petulant asshats can't see that the inauguration is a celebration of the institution, and not of the man being sworn in.
The divisiveness only continues to get worse as long as these douchebags can't see that they are the ones perpetuating the problem.
I'm sure that the Democrats will show all the support and understanding to Trump that the Republicans showed to Obama.
The fact that there's a whole shitload of stupid people out there doesn't change the fact that those people are wrong.
I am not mad at people like you because Clinton lost. I am unconcerned that we have different politics. And I don’t think less of people like you because you vote one way and I vote another. I think less of people like you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still supported him. I think less of you because you saw a man spouting clear racism and backed him. I think less of you because you listened to him advocate for war crimes, and still thought he should run this country. I think less of people like you because you watched him equate a woman’s worth to her appearance and got on board. It isn’t your politics that I find repulsive. It is your personal willingness to support racism, sexism, and cruelty. You sided with a bully when it mattered and that is something I will never forget. So, no people like you and I won’t be “coming together” to move forward or whatever. Trump disgusts me, but it is the fact that he doesn’t disgust people like you that will stick with me long after this election.
Trump is certainly *different* from previous Presidents and major candidates in important ways. Some good differences, some bad, and some with both good and bad aspects. We'll see what happens. I've been wrong when I predicted what Obama and Bush Jrs presidencies would be like, so I'm not going to try to predict Trump - we just have to wait and see.
Bad includes his seemingly impulsive Twitter comments to "fight back" against criticism. He probably should have ignored Meryl Streep, for example.
Good includes the fact that he's not dependent on campaign contributors like almost all major politicians are.
We'll just see where the roulette ball lands. I'll oppose any bad policies he proposes and support any good ones.
We did this to ourselves. No matter what it feels like, the fact is our system of government has functioned (and continues to function) exactly as designed. If Mr. President Trump is not likely to make America whole again, the task falls to us, the citizenry of this (long great and still great) nation. We must oppose insanity with calm and deliberate purpose, not with incohate and aimless rage.
You mean like the Tea Party tantrums of 2009? I didn't forget about those. Did you?
Place something witty here
Yes, just think about what terrible things the Clinton Foundation did, like:
Raised $313 million for R&D into new vaccines and medicines;
Helped provide better maternal and child survival care to more than 110 million people, and;
Provided treatment for more than 36 million people with tropical diseases.
Even worse, it spent 88% of its 2014 outlays directly on programs (rather than overhead) and that it only has to spend $2 to raise $100. A performance that poor gives it a solid "A" rating from charity watchdogs. We're all clearly better off without groups like this funneling money from rich donors to help poor people in underdeveloped countries around the world.
Source: http://fortune.com/2016/08/27/...
People have been wrong about how voters react to him, not really wrong about the man himself.
As far as what he'll actually do in office, we still don't really know. It's like getting in line for a roller coaster covered up with sheets. We don't even know if it's fully constructed yet.
For example, he wants tax cuts, larger military, and infrastructure spending. Together these will likely exasperate the budget deficit. He hopes he can grow the economy enough to expand tax revenue to pay for it all, BUT if the optimistic plan fails, what will he give up to keep the budget in line, or will he just blow the budget, setting us up for a crash without enough in the tank for an emergency stimulus?
The real test of a leader is not when their plans go right, but how they adjust when they fail.
On trade, what if trade-wars start and it becomes clear after a while those wars are hurting our economy? Will he back down, and double down?
And what will he do if Russia invades more territory? If he keeps ignoring it, we may get Soviet Union 2.0. Those were scary days with too many close calls; we don't want them back.
Add to that his ability to agitate countries and ethnic groups.
Spock impression: "This is a fascinating experiment in leadership. I just hope we can watch it from a safe distance, Captain."
Table-ized A.I.
For those that don't know what that is, here is the entirety of the text of that clause
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Trump is NOT in violation of this clause. And it is a hillarious claim coming from anyone that voted for Hillary, who would have been actually in violation of this clause, with the Clinton Foundation.
Typically, all "Gifts" from foreign heads of state are property of the US Government and are placed in the public trust.
What this poster is trying to say, is that Trump cannot rent his hotel rooms out to people because that is a "gift".
Here is the definition:
a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.
I wonder where all these people were when Hillary was SoS and Bill was being paid by all those rich Arab Princes and Kings for giving speeches. Why suddenly they are "horrified" that Trump owns a business that might rent a hotel room to a prince, but said nothing for 4 years while the Clinton's enriched themselves.
Hypocrites.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
When I take an objective look at the policies of President Trump, they differ significantly from those of Nazi Germany.
Trump doesn't bring in Nazi Germany's policies, definitely, but let's not kid ourselves here when he retweets people who are very open Nazi supporters. He may not be directly peddling their beliefs, but he sure as hell doesn't shy away from them either, and I'd have thought people who be a little more opposed to that. I'm German as well as American, and I still have a little chest in my attic that contains the Nazi papers for my grandmother, proving her "racial purity" and "ability to support the fatherland through childbirth". Next to that are the papers that notify her her husband was executed for "violations of peace and order", with his protesting. It serves as a nice reminder sometimes, what we were all collectively lucky enough to avoid. It's really not a sexy time period to have lived in, and I really would have thought that'd be more of a detriment to people who champion being against the Soviet Union and Russia, places with an absolutely awful record on human rights and standards of living. Ahhhh, but that's not a problem for people today either, eh?
isolationism and self-sufficiency
For the US, these don't really work. Think about it; what are our greatest industries? If you said agriculture, entertainment, and the dominance of the tech industry, you'd be correct. What use is a ridiculous surplus, movies, and a strong control of the industry if there's no use to sell them too? What exactly are we going to do with the ridiculous excess of corn we make every year if nobody wants to buy it?
The emphasis on greater border security, including the building of physical barriers, also backs up the idea that America won't be trying to expand its borders beyond where they are today. These are well-established borders, and have been for a very long time.
Fully agree. Once we collectively realized what asses we were to the Native Americans, thankfully, we (mostly) left behind our expansionist bullshit. I both think and hope we keep it that way. Fortunately, Obama was pretty in favor of border enforcement, as was Hillary Clinton, and virtually every other Democrat. The debate is about what we do with people who've lived in our own country for years but don't have our citizenship; it's probably worth noting that many people born, raised, and died in America also lack these papers or documents proving their citizenship except for maybe a birth certificate.
Actually enforcing long-standing immigration and border regulations is not "racism", as some people appear to incorrectly believe. These regulations apply to all people, regardless of race or other such attributes.
Not sure who this was aimed at, but Obama most definitely enforced immigration rules, and he even gets shit for that from some Democrats. If he let too many people stay, better ring up Bush, Bush Sr, or Reagan, because they all enforced their rules less than he did. (Regan even gave those criminal immigrants a permanent stay, clearly he must've been from Lithuania and only pretended to be an American and isn't really one)
Based on everything we've seen so far, President Trump's administration is actually putting the interests of all Americans first and foremost. This is the first time we've seen this in many decades.
The first comment I think you're flat out wrong. When you get past the Goldman-Sachs guy who wants to lower regulations on his industry, the EPA guy who wants to sue himself and then set precedent for stupid standards for his industry, and the president who wants to get insider deals for hiiiiiis industry, we can maybe start with Republicans & Trump repealing an act that will kill tens of thousands of people, or a guy who wants to concentrate on publicity stunts and shows focusing on his own glory i
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Those are my sentiments. For the first time I can remember, we've elected a President with no political experience, but a lot of business experience. Ross Perot got somewhat close in 1992 I suppose. It could spell doom, or, we might discover that most politicians are as full of shit as we always joked or suspected that they were, and things actually get better with a non-politician in charge. We'll see.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
No, I think Palestine should have taken the Two State solution offered by Israel a few years ago, but refused and went on a rampage over it.
The problem is, you think that Palestine wants a two state solution, and they don't. It has been offered, repeatedly, and they keep refusing.
And I wonder why you don't mention the Palestinians "Illegally" launching rockets into Israel. Or the time that Israel pulled its settlements out of Gaza, only to have them turned into rocket launching sites. I'm talking functioning industry and farms being walked away from and turning back into desert because ... Palestinians don't want anything the Jews had built.
Palestinians are functionally incapably of peace at this time.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I seem to remember shortly after Obama was inaugurated that Republican members of congress made it their goal to make him a failed president, opposed him in every action, voted against anything he supported and basically did everything in their power to oppose anything and everything he tried to do. It's interesting that those same republicans and their supporters now get their panties in a wad when the shoe is on the other foot.
It's all fine and dandy to want cooperation and working together but that requires that both sides do it. The republican's made it clear that this divided government thing is the way things will run in the future. It's up to them to fix that by going across the aisle and working with democrats not steam rolling them.
On the war crimes comment, I'm sure the person was referring to the time Trump said that killing the terrorists themselves wasn't enough. He would instruct the military to kill the families of terrorists too.
You might be interested in reading "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America", by Colin Woodard. The author argues that there are 11 distinct cultures in North America, which don't align neatly with state (or even national) boundaries, and that US politics is primarily a competition between two shifting coalitions of these 11 cultures, coalitions anchored in the Yankee culture (Democrats) and the Deep South culture (Republicans). One value that both of those cultures hold in common is authoritarianism, though of very different forms.
Yankeedom is built around and values a communitarian form of authoritarianism, derived largely from its Puritanical heritage. Even though the religious aspects of Yankee Puritanism have gone away, they've been replaced by a secular form of the same thing, which is the notion that while it's critical that the people as a whole have "independence", meaning they can form their own assemblies and regulate themselves, the individual should willingly subjugate his or her own will to that of the community. In Puritan days, this was severe; almost any form of disagreement with the community's religious and social values resulted in severe punishment. Individual freedom was not valued, and tolerance for alternative views was extremely low. Also, Yankeedom reveres education, and therefore the fruits of education, including progressiveness.
The Deep South is built around and values a hierarchical form of very strict authoritarianism, derived from that region's slaveholding culture, which enabled it to establish an essentially feudal model of lordly manors occupied by elegant idlers, supported by masses of lower classes. The southern planters placed tremendous value on "liberty" but it was the old Greek and Roman notion of liberty, which is available only to those at the top. The south took the "lower classes" notion a bit further than feudal lords with their serfs, but the southern class-based society wasn't just "planters" and "slaves", there was also a large underclass of what we might now call white trash, which was also expected to be subservient. What's perhaps odd about the old Deep Southern notions of hierarchy is that they were so deeply embedded in the society that although the underclasses chafed a bit, they also grew to expect a strong hierarchy and to respect their aristocratic leaders.
So, the two core cultures around which our political battles revolve are both authoritarians. Their allied cultures are less authoritarian, but it's the core cultures that hold the whip hand. In particular the left coast is very big on individual freedom and self-realization, but also has its roots in Yankeedom, including the trust in education and progress, which makes is a natural ally of the Yankee culture even though they disagree on individual freedom. Similarly, the far west culture is very libertarian but allies with the deep south because of its opposition to Yankeedom, rather than because it likes the southern authoritarianism.
Anyway, that's a flavor of what's in the book. You probably won't agree with all of it (I don't), but a lot of it makes a great deal of sense and I found that it really illuminates my understanding of the major political dynamics in the US, and has helped me understand why there is this strong streak of authoritarianism in a country that purportedly values freedom and independence.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
you didn't answer the question at all.
it may be the same way he mocks able-bodied folks, but WHY does he do it in that particular manner? If not to mock the particular physical disability that some folks have? (including the reporter in question)
it seems pretty clear that the jerking, arm-clutched-to-the-chest motion is the same thing that elementary school kids do to make fun of disabled people. surely you aren't claiming it to be purely coincidental that he chose that very specific physical action.
if your argument is that he mocks able-bodied and disabled folks in the same way, by pretending they all have a physical disability of the arm and hand that causes muscle spasms, then you aren't really helping the case.
Mocking the diabled: Video, 45 seconds long: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2...
Trump racism: Let's start with 1973 charges of discrimination in housing, then work forward to 2016 where he said the Central Park Five should go to jail DESPITE DNA evidence exonerating them, with all sorts of gems along the way. http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/... Oh... and then there's the famous quote about Mexicans. And suggesting a blanket ban on Muslims as a category.
Advocating for war crimes: March 2016, defending ordering the US military to commit war crimes of killing non-combatants that are family members of those in combat http://www.washingtontimes.com... Also advocates for waterboarding and worse in several interviews and speeches.
Regarding treatment of women: Ah, the famous "grab them by the pussy" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wow -- you actually weren't even aware of that comment? And yet you came to this detailed defense of him here?
See -- here's the problem: it's not any one thing. It's a "preponderance of the evidence" thing. And I am far from a "leftist" -- I hate both major parties with a passion and found both major candidates this election to be some of the worst choices EVER.
But Trump is simply in a "different league" of problems. That's why people assume he made fun of a disabled guy. I've seen the Catholics for Trump propaganda before. Maybe it's true. But there are other details about the specific references Trump made that also make me doubt his claim. Personally, I'd give Trump's story that he wasn't actually intentionally making fun of a disability about 5% chance of being true.
And that's mostly because of Trump's other record. He doesn't get to have "the benefit of the doubt" in a case like this when he's been a bullying boorish jerk the rest of the time. And yes, he DOES behave like a jerk. He DOES behave like a bully to many people IN PUBLIC. (I hear he's nice to people in person. That's great. But it's not the persona on the campaign trail.) I personally don't care much about the disability issue -- the very fact that Trump tends to make fun of people rather than debate their issues is a MUCH bigger problem to me than whether or not he insulted a disabled person. (The latter obviously is still a significant issue if true, but again, it's the larger pattern that's concerning, rather than that one detail.)
It seems like you, like many people who ultimately voted for Trump, just decided that you're going to believe the talking points of his supporters that the rest of the media was lying. I fully believe a lot of the mainstream media also exaggerated a bunch of things too (though, to be fair, Trump frequently egged them into doing so by behaving increasingly outlandish to get attention).
I really am trying to give our new President a chance today. Really. I'll wait and see what he does over the next weeks and months. But it distresses me when someone who comes out so strongly as a Trump defender is then not even familiar with the fact that Trump has advocated war crimes!! To me, it shows how warped the message has gotten to many voters. (And yes, it occurs on both sides, but the disconnect from reality has started to increase significantly much more on one of them.)