45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

[rscott]

p1stonhead said:

scherzkeks said:

walm said:

scherzkeks said:

Incorrect. My argument is that the photo on the left is being used to misrepresent turnout at Trump's inauguration.

You still don't get it.
If the attendance was lower, then it can't possibly be misrepresentation!!
That's the whole point.

It's an absolute defence to misrepresentation if you were telling the truth!

The photo circulating in the media does not match the photos from when the speech was given as the mall filled up.

The photo being circulated is being used to give the impression that turnout was poor.

Twist it all you want.

Or make up phony quotes, as you did in your previous post. Whatever helps you cope.

Forget the photos. Comment on this video?

https://www.facebook.com/earthcaminc/videos/101541...

He seems to be avoiding that question. I've asked it too.

[p1stonhead]

p1stonhead said:

XM5ER said:

p1stonhead said:

So your opinion is that when America was 'great' was 6 years ago. Thats fine - Trump hasnt clarified himself I assumed he meant some sort of golden era, not when the iphone 5 came out.

And also jobs were still in the toilet back then so you think Trump is going after and increase in overall production rather than jobs?

Thats fine too but Trump hasnt adressed that either.

Clearly its open to interpretation hence the reason for posting it. Personally I thought he wanted to bring back jobs to the coal industry as this makes more sense than going after and increase in the (presumed) profits of the coal company execs in my mind.

It wasnt a post with an agenda. Its an interesting topic worthy of discussion I thought.

Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 23 January 14:07

www.counselling-directory.org.uk

HTH

I literally dont get your point? You think im whinging or upset about something?

XM5ER said:

If you want a discussion, don't start by telling me what my opinion is.

I wasnt. I was inferring that from the fact you thought there was some huge issue between 2011 and now. Its a drop in the ocean as opposed to the overall industry figures.

XM5ER said:

I have no idea when America was at it's most great, but that's not relevant to the point you were making about coal.

Didnt say your idea was. Trump is the one claiming to be heading back there so it absolutely relevent to his claims.

XM5ER said:

Coal means cheap electricity and steel (ask the Chinese), cheap electricity means cheaper manufacturing (ask the Chinese), cheaper manufacturing means more jobs (ask the Chinese).

So working back, jobs (due to manufacturing, due to electricity, due to coal) should have been at absolute peak in 2008 when coal production was highest? But we know they were nearly at their lowest so how does that work?

XM5ER said:

Perhaps if you look again at what you originally posted and do a little digging and critical thinking, you might actually come to the conclusion that Trump could actually be right about this even if he is wrong about many other things.

I suggest you take some of your own advice and suggest a way any of it is possible to a rational person viewing the figures objectively.

[Stickyfinger]

p1stonhead said:

Stickyfinger said:

p1stonhead said:

I dont think I posted anything which was polarising - it came from the white house website.
I wasnt trying to predict FACTS in the future, I was asking for opinions on how his policy should be taken and in which context as clearly we have maximum production now but lowest jobs. I was wondering what people thought Trump's ideal was because he would either be doing nothing as production is highest now, or trying to go back to 1923 when jobs were highest. It cant be both unless you ban machinery and bring back the guys with pickaxe's.

You dont think its worth discussing his proposed policies based on facts to date?

Not serious surely?

I do not think ANYBODY on this thread could present anything on "facts" at the moment. It is clear that those presented (as you have just done) will be entirely argumentative and used to support a prejudiced prior position.

No they arent. They are facts. Facts from the US Government. You cant have different versions of facts! Oh wait..... Kellyanne?!

Read the bold.....I am not disputing they may or may not be facts. I am suggesting that the way they ("facts") are being used is not constructive to a reasonable discussion as everybody has a totally polarised position and agenda. The thread is way way past an open minded discussion.

Your mindset is shown clearly by this type of finish
"Oh wait..... Kellyanne?!"

[minimoog]

scherzkeks said:

The photo circulating in the media does not match the photos from when the speech was given as the mall filled up.

The photo being circulated is being used to give the impression that turnout was poor.

Twist it all you want.

Or make up phony quotes, as you did in your previous post. Whatever helps you cope.

This shows the photo you claim is being misused because it was taken before the ceremony, side by side with a webcam frame taken during Trump's inauguration speech.



This is the area towards the back of the crowd, in front of the white temporary buildings, marked by the red dot above. Timestamped 2 minutes later than the one above, i.e. also during Trump's speech:



And this is the area in front of that, marked by the blue dot, also during the speech:



I'd say there's a few hundred more at most in that last shot compared to the first.

Source video link has already been posted.

:drops mic:

Edited by minimoog on Monday 23 January 15:29

[p1stonhead]

Stickyfinger said:

p1stonhead said:

Stickyfinger said:

p1stonhead said:

I dont think I posted anything which was polarising - it came from the white house website.
I wasnt trying to predict FACTS in the future, I was asking for opinions on how his policy should be taken and in which context as clearly we have maximum production now but lowest jobs. I was wondering what people thought Trump's ideal was because he would either be doing nothing as production is highest now, or trying to go back to 1923 when jobs were highest. It cant be both unless you ban machinery and bring back the guys with pickaxe's.

You dont think its worth discussing his proposed policies based on facts to date?

Not serious surely?

I do not think ANYBODY on this thread could present anything on "facts" at the moment. It is clear that those presented (as you have just done) will be entirely argumentative and used to support a prejudiced prior position.

No they arent. They are facts. Facts from the US Government. You cant have different versions of facts! Oh wait..... Kellyanne?!

Read the bold.....I am not disputing they may or may not be facts. I am suggesting that the way they ("facts") are being used is not constructive to a reasonable discussion as everybody has a totally polarised position and agenda. The thread is way way past an open minded discussion.

So you dont like cold hard factual numbers because they dont support your view of things? Stop throwing facts around trying to make a point! Facts are facts - you cant say they have an agenda.

I didnt make up the facts I merely copied them from their sources.

You are a lunatic.

[OldandGrumpy]

The underlying question is does objective reality exist anymore? It only has utility when it supports a political perspective and so its use needs to be limited to where it is likely to be successful in promoting the agenda of choice. Given the wide spectrum of political perspectives existing, and the ability to promote perspectives widely via the internet, objective reality has to be placed in the correct context. In informational terms objective reality is only one of many realities and deserves no greater emphasis. To argue otherwise is to suggest that political agendas are relegated to a theoretical role rather than the generators of reality. The future is not formed by reference to objective reality, it is formed by actions that follow the agenda of choice. To think otherwise is madness.

[Stickyfinger]

"You are a lunatic."

I think you make my point about the thread and its current state. Why would anybody even bother having an open minded discussion with you ?

Edited by Stickyfinger on Monday 23 January 15:27

[p1stonhead]

Stickyfinger said:

"You are a lunatic."

I think you make my point about the thread

Yes all of your points make you look like a lunatic.

[Stickyfinger]

p1stonhead said:

Yes all of your points make you look like a lunatic.

see ya....winner and you call Trump a what ?.....good job

[XM5ER]

p1stonhead said:

p1stonhead said:

XM5ER said:

p1stonhead said:

So your opinion is that when America was 'great' was 6 years ago. Thats fine - Trump hasnt clarified himself I assumed he meant some sort of golden era, not when the iphone 5 came out.

And also jobs were still in the toilet back then so you think Trump is going after and increase in overall production rather than jobs?

Thats fine too but Trump hasnt adressed that either.

Clearly its open to interpretation hence the reason for posting it. Personally I thought he wanted to bring back jobs to the coal industry as this makes more sense than going after and increase in the (presumed) profits of the coal company execs in my mind.

It wasnt a post with an agenda. Its an interesting topic worthy of discussion I thought.

Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 23 January 14:07

www.counselling-directory.org.uk

HTH

I literally dont get your point? You think im whinging or upset about something?

XM5ER said:

If you want a discussion, don't start by telling me what my opinion is.

I wasnt. I was inferring that from the fact you thought there was some huge issue between 2011 and now. Its a drop in the ocean as opposed to the overall industry figures.

XM5ER said:

I have no idea when America was at it's most great, but that's not relevant to the point you were making about coal.

Didnt say your idea was. Trump is the one claiming to be heading back there so it absolutely relevent to his claims.

XM5ER said:

Coal means cheap electricity and steel (ask the Chinese), cheap electricity means cheaper manufacturing (ask the Chinese), cheaper manufacturing means more jobs (ask the Chinese).

So working back, jobs (due to manufacturing, due to electricity, due to coal) should have been at absolute peak in 2008 when coal production was highest? But we know they were nearly at their lowest so how does that work?

XM5ER said:

Perhaps if you look again at what you originally posted and do a little digging and critical thinking, you might actually come to the conclusion that Trump could actually be right about this even if he is wrong about many other things.

I suggest you take some of your own advice and suggest a way any of it is possible to a rational person viewing the figures objectively.

Has coal production in the USA fallen off a cliff since 2011. Err.. yes, look at your own links you idiot. You ignore the loss of 40000 jobs. From a global perspective coal's doing ok, primarily because the Chinese have been building power stations like crazy, it sustained the Australian economy through the financial crisis for example.

If you stop acting batst crazy and posting stuff that's easy to poke holes in then people will stop treating you like a loon.

[scherzkeks]

jcremonini said:

scherzkeks said:

walm said:

scherzkeks said:

Incorrect. My argument is that the photo on the left is being used to misrepresent turnout at Trump's inauguration.

You still don't get it.
If the attendance was lower, then it can't possibly be misrepresentation!!
That's the whole point.

It's an absolute defence to misrepresentation if you were telling the truth!

The photo circulating in the media does not match the photos from when the speech was given as the mall filled up.

The photo being circulated is being used to give the impression that turnout was poor.

Twist it all you want.

Or make up phony quotes, as you did in your previous post. Whatever helps you cope.

"Impression" ? It was poor. Very poor. No matter how much you try to argue it wasn't.

You are again demonstrably inncorrect.

The turnout was smaller than for Obama (which was record-setting for rather obvious reasons), but not small by historical measure.

[FourWheelDrift]

The missing few were probably at the Women's march, the one organised by the Sharia Law supporting Linda Sarsour.

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/53019707248647...
https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/59832626221881...

Go Luvvies!

[TheExcession]

loose cannon said:

In other news madonna threatened to blow up the Whitehouse oh dear lots of backtracking now by Madge but she didn't really mean it though

Possibly a case of a different meaning regarding 'blow [up] the White House'. Maybe she's aiming for a Lewinsky esque role?

A stupid stupid stupid woman for making that statement, but hey, the crowd cheered and that's what the celebs live for.

[jmorgan]

FourWheelDrift said:

The missing few were probably at the Women's march, the one organised by the Sharia Law supporting Linda Sarsour.

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/53019707248647...
https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/59832626221881...

Go Luvvies!

Womens march had more? How will Spicer spin that. Sorry, how will Donald tell Spicer to spin that.

(

[p1stonhead]

XM5ER said:

p1stonhead said:

p1stonhead said:

XM5ER said:

p1stonhead said:

So your opinion is that when America was 'great' was 6 years ago. Thats fine - Trump hasnt clarified himself I assumed he meant some sort of golden era, not when the iphone 5 came out.

And also jobs were still in the toilet back then so you think Trump is going after and increase in overall production rather than jobs?

Thats fine too but Trump hasnt adressed that either.

Clearly its open to interpretation hence the reason for posting it. Personally I thought he wanted to bring back jobs to the coal industry as this makes more sense than going after and increase in the (presumed) profits of the coal company execs in my mind.

It wasnt a post with an agenda. Its an interesting topic worthy of discussion I thought.

Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 23 January 14:07

www.counselling-directory.org.uk

HTH

I literally dont get your point? You think im whinging or upset about something?

XM5ER said:

If you want a discussion, don't start by telling me what my opinion is.

I wasnt. I was inferring that from the fact you thought there was some huge issue between 2011 and now. Its a drop in the ocean as opposed to the overall industry figures.

XM5ER said:

I have no idea when America was at it's most great, but that's not relevant to the point you were making about coal.

Didnt say your idea was. Trump is the one claiming to be heading back there so it absolutely relevent to his claims.

XM5ER said:

Coal means cheap electricity and steel (ask the Chinese), cheap electricity means cheaper manufacturing (ask the Chinese), cheaper manufacturing means more jobs (ask the Chinese).

So working back, jobs (due to manufacturing, due to electricity, due to coal) should have been at absolute peak in 2008 when coal production was highest? But we know they were nearly at their lowest so how does that work?

XM5ER said:

Perhaps if you look again at what you originally posted and do a little digging and critical thinking, you might actually come to the conclusion that Trump could actually be right about this even if he is wrong about many other things.

I suggest you take some of your own advice and suggest a way any of it is possible to a rational person viewing the figures objectively.

Has coal production in the USA fallen off a cliff since 2011. Err.. yes, look at your own links you idiot. You ignore the loss of 40000 jobs. From a global perspective coal's doing ok, primarily because the Chinese have been building power stations like crazy, it sustained the Australian economy through the financial crisis for example.

If you stop acting batst crazy and posting stuff that's easy to poke holes in then people will stop treating you like a loon.

Its fallen by around 25% since 2008 but thats still above the coal production in any year before 1985. The world has changed a lot since 1980 wouldnt you agree? Is coal still as relevant? Just because it peaked in 2011 doesnt mean it was necessary back then.

You also assume trump meant 2011 when he said American would be 'great again (like it was after 3 years of Obama!)'

Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 23 January 16:01

[TheExcession]

scherzkeks said:

I tend to agree, but the bizarre thing is how the left (of which I am a card carrying member) has shifted to being what it claims to hate.

^^^ The bold bit above. I'm very curious to understand what that actually means in the 'real world' (by that I mean to the average person).

My feelings on the situation in the US appear to be pretty much aligned with what you have been posting, but I'm at a loss to understand what you meant above.

[XM5ER]

p1stonhead said:

Its fallen by around 25% since 2008 but thats still above the coal production in any year before 1985. The world has changed a lot since 1980 wouldnt you agree? Is coal still as relevant? Just because it peaked in 2011 doesnt mean it was necessary back then.

Seriously WTF are you on about? What started as an anti-Trump rant has just devolved into some bizarre apples vs oranges geo-political economics argument.

Trump claims he want's cheap energy to bring help make US manufacturing competitive, he see's coal as a way to do this (like China), he uses this to bolster his vote in the the coal belt. He get's into office and appears to be following through on this policy, what is your point exactly?

[minimoog]

TheExcession said:

scherzkeks said:

I tend to agree, but the bizarre thing is how the left (of which I am a card carrying member) has shifted to being what it claims to hate.

^^^ The bold bit above. I'm very curious to understand what that actually means in the 'real world' (by that I mean to the average person).

My feelings on the situation in the US appear to be pretty much aligned with what you have been posting, but I'm at a loss to understand what you meant above.

Scherzy lives in Germany and votes for German parties. I think he mentioned before he usually votes Green. Whether he as US voting rights I've no idea.

[jcremonini]

scherzkeks said:

jcremonini said:

scherzkeks said:

walm said:

scherzkeks said:

Incorrect. My argument is that the photo on the left is being used to misrepresent turnout at Trump's inauguration.

You still don't get it.
If the attendance was lower, then it can't possibly be misrepresentation!!
That's the whole point.

It's an absolute defence to misrepresentation if you were telling the truth!

The photo circulating in the media does not match the photos from when the speech was given as the mall filled up.

The photo being circulated is being used to give the impression that turnout was poor.

Twist it all you want.

Or make up phony quotes, as you did in your previous post. Whatever helps you cope.

"Impression" ? It was poor. Very poor. No matter how much you try to argue it wasn't.

You are again demonstrably inncorrect.

The turnout was smaller than for Obama (which was record-setting for rather obvious reasons), but not small by historical measure.

Historically the inauguration was not so 'easy' to attend. There were no big screens or large sound systems and it was meant for a select few rather than the masses.

So - I'll stick with my poor rating. On a personal level the low turnout surprised me. Whether you like him or not , he is a first in so many ways and I'm surprised more people didn't take up the 'I was there' chance.

[scherzkeks]

TheExcession said:

scherzkeks said:

I tend to agree, but the bizarre thing is how the left (of which I am a card carrying member) has shifted to being what it claims to hate.

^^^ The bold bit above. I'm very curious to understand what that actually means in the 'real world' (by that I mean to the average person).

My feelings on the situation in the US appear to be pretty much aligned with what you have been posting, but I'm at a loss to understand what you meant above.

Ah, I suppose that is an Americanism (I am a US citizen). Just means that I am registered with a certain party (Green at present).

Edited by scherzkeks on Monday 23 January 16:16