Yes the Nafta has to be renogiated Canada had lost so many auto plants in the last few years and no replacements are planned and yet Mexican and US vehicles enter the country almost free of charge...
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
I watched the press conference Q&A the executives had with the press, and they were all pleased with the Trump meeting and what he wants to accomplish. Not one of the CEOs reacted negatively or with any reservations over the meeting.
The mainstream press will focus on (if they aren't already, I don't know) on the threat of a "major border tax" and the "OMG the sky is falling and we're all gonna die from pollution" 75% reduction in (needless and worthless) regulations.
Trump is scheduled to meet with the Big Three automakers tomorrow.
The mainstream press will focus on (if they aren't already, I don't know) on the threat of a "major border tax" and the "OMG the sky is falling and we're all gonna die from pollution" 75% reduction in (needless and worthless) regulations.
Trump is scheduled to meet with the Big Three automakers tomorrow.
Inauguration crowd size is a far more important thing to worry about.
Turns out, that infamous crowd shot that showed all that empty white space at Trump's 2017 inauguration was taken at 9:03 AM, and Obama's 2009 comparison picture was taken at 12:06 PM, right while Obama was giving his speech after being sworn in. CNN has a big story about it, where you can use a slider thing to move back and forth between the pictures to show just how sparse Trump's crowd was. Then, on a different CNN page, they have a really gnarly 180º gigapixel image taken when Trump was speaking where you can scroll around and zoom in to count nose hairs on people half a mile away. Somehow as if by magic, all those white spaces are filled in with people. Not completely, of course, but mostly. I don't think anyone really believes that the inauguration crowd for Trump was as large as the crowd was for the first black president. Obama had a larger crowd in 2009 than Obama did in 2013, which wasn't surprising, either.
Two short videos worth watching. If for no other reason than to see just how the Internet can keep people honest.
Here's a video that shows the slider page, as well as the gigapixel image.
Here's a video that shows the Tweet that started it all, and the gigapixel image. What's remarkable about this video is the breathtakingly blunt and honest (and hilarious) commentary on its importance. (he states that we don't know what time the photo was taken, but later the EXIF data on the photo showed the time (and the GPS coordinates) it was taken). The language is a little off color, but isn't gratuitous.
"So you bitch and moan that Obama had more. It's totally irrelevant. It's an absolute red herring. Why you are even considering this as, like, something worth talking about as it just speaks to this petty, point-scoring mindset. Yeah, well, lookit, Obama has a big crowd.... SO? Trump just repealed Obamacare. Hasn't he? Aren't you worried that he might overturn Roe v. Wade? I mean what are you talking about these [bleeping] crowds for? Who cares?!? He can do as he wants, or as the Congress and House allows. Just [bleeping] find some focus! This in not anything important. Stop talking about it."
It's even funnier when he says it in a British accent.
Today the White House announced that Trump will focus initially on immigrants in the country illegally who have a criminal record or pose a threat, and those who have overstayed their visas. Which is exactly what he said before the election, and in the CBS interview right after the election.
The MSM headline?
Trump admin backs off pledge of immediate immigration change
The MSM headline?
Trump admin backs off pledge of immediate immigration change
Game time 
Before game time
I think that the time the picture was taken would be important.Inauguration crowd size is a far more important thing to worry about.
Turns out, that infamous crowd shot that showed all that empty white space at Trump's 2017 inauguration was taken at 9:03 AM, and Obama's 2009 comparison picture was taken at 12:06 PM, right while Obama was giving his speech after being sworn in. CNN has a big story about it, where you can use a slider thing to move back and forth between the pictures to show just how sparse Trump's crowd was. Then, on a different CNN page, they have a really gnarly 180º gigapixel image taken when Trump was speaking where you can scroll around and zoom in to count nose hairs on people half a mile away. Somehow as if by magic, all those white spaces are filled in with people. Not completely, of course, but mostly. I don't think anyone really believes that the inauguration crowd for Trump was as large as the crowd was for the first black president. Obama had a larger crowd in 2009 than Obama did in 2013, which wasn't surprising, either.
Two short videos worth watching. If for no other reason than to see just how the Internet can keep people honest.
Here's a video that shows the slider page, as well as the gigapixel image.
Here's a video that shows the Tweet that started it all, and the gigapixel image. What's remarkable about this video is the breathtakingly blunt and honest (and hilarious) commentary on its importance. (he states that we don't know what time the photo was taken, but later the EXIF data on the photo showed the time (and the GPS coordinates) it was taken). The language is a little off color, but isn't gratuitous.
"So you bitch and moan that Obama had more. It's totally irrelevant. It's an absolute red herring. Why you are even considering this as, like, something worth talking about as it just speaks to this petty, point-scoring mindset. Yeah, well, lookit, Obama has a big crowd.... SO? Trump just repealed Obamacare. Hasn't he? Aren't you worried that he might overturn Roe v. Wade? I mean what are you talking about these [bleeping] crowds for? Who cares?!? He can do as he wants, or as the Congress and House allows. Just [bleeping] find some focus! This in not anything important. Stop talking about it."
It's even funnier when he says it in a British accent.
Hmmm, A little revenge on the media at 1st White House press conference?
New York Times reporter Michael Grynbaum tweeted within minutes: “Priorities, Day 1: Spicer calls on NY Post, CBN, Univision, Fox News. So far top newspapers & broadcast networks shut out.”
Spicer, the new sheriff, shakes up the White House press room. How refreshing
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
New York Times reporter Michael Grynbaum tweeted within minutes: “Priorities, Day 1: Spicer calls on NY Post, CBN, Univision, Fox News. So far top newspapers & broadcast networks shut out.”
Spicer, the new sheriff, shakes up the White House press room. How refreshing
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
You betcha. They're whining like, well, like little children and liberals who can't get their way.
Kennyanne Conway let a few of them have it on Sunday, especially Chuck Todd, who she's know for 20 years. She tells a little about it in this very candid and blunt interview.
Trump's 'alternative facts' fight takes campaign on into White House
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Excellent article, because it's a great example of what Spicer, Conway and many others have been saying about the press. Whatever is said, whatever happens, whatever the situation, the press defaults to "how can we craft this narrative to paint Trump in the most negative light?"
Trump's inauguration speech was "dark, and scary and divisive, Hitlerian." No it wasn't. If you read the transcript of the speech and pretend Obama or any other Democrat said it, it's full of hope and change.
The press mocks the unemployment numbers Trump uses, even though they know full well what he means and that he's right about the real unemployment. When people are collecting unemployment benefits they are counted as being unemployed, but the instant they run out of benefits they are removed from the unemployment numbers. These people may still be looking for work, and some have just given up, but they are simply removed from the equation. We have the lowest labor participation rate since the 70s, with 96 million people between the ages of 18 and 65 not working, and its not because people are independently wealthy.
The article even has the balls to state:
Yet that's not what Trump said. They have chopped his sentence to create a new context and new parameters for what he said. What he said was, "In the 50 largest cities, the murder rate in the United States is the largest it's been in 45 years." Which according to the same FBI statistics, is 100% true.MSM Wankers at NBC News said:
So with the murder rate, what Trump is is a fact, and what they press reports about the nation as a whole is also a fact. Alternative facts.
As for the illegal voting, no one can say for sure what the entent of it might be, but it is an actual, verifiable fact that in California you do not have to prove citizenship to obtain a driver's license, and even California estimates 4-5 million illegals (excuse me, undocumented immigrants) have California driver's licenses. If you have a California driver's license, you are automatically registered to vote. It's not hard to extrapolate 3 or 4 million votes from that.
So, yeah, the alternative facts thing from the campaign is going to carry over into the White House, because the press actively seeks out any opportunity to report Trump in the most negative way possible. Look at the whole MLK bust in the Oval Office thing. Zeke Miller of Time (formerly of BuzzFeed, BTW) Tweets that on Day One Trump removed the MLK bust, simply because Miller didn't see it there on the table hidden behind someone. Did he even bother to ask anyone in the room if the bust was there? Nope. Because the default action for the press is to be as negative as possible. Miller's original Tweet got retweeted 28,000 times. His "correction" got retweeted 1100 times. In the same way that people right now, today, believe that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, months and years from now people will believe that Trump removed the MLK bust from the Oval Office within hours of his swearing in, and some will believe he put it back only after getting called on it.
just an outsider thinking outside the box....since it is a FEDERAL election and all...why can't there be one uniform law across all 50 states to deal with eligibility? ...if one wants to cast thier vote for a FEDERAL candidate then you must prove yourself....
This sounds like a good idea but on election day there are also state and local offices and issues to be voted for or against. I do believe one should have proof of eligibility to vote, although it is discriminatory toward non U.S. citizens, dead persons and people who think their candidate of choice deserves more than one vote.
Where are you that you only have 3G?View attachment 15237 They should look at that potential illegal voting. Oh wait:
They should look at th
They should look at that potential illegal voting. Oh wait:
Trump is just a sore winner!