45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

[p1stonhead]

XM5ER said:

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?

I was wondering if he wanted a return to maximum coal production or maximum coal jobs. They have an inverse long term relationship it would appear.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

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.

Would you say the estimates of 700,000-900,000 were reasonable? So similar to the turnout for Clinton of 800,000.

[tommunster10]

scherzkeks said:

tommunster10 said:

When the alt right see a celebrity talking about world issues that are a bit left leaning, it's all 'champagne socialist' and "celebs should stay out of politics"
When a celebrity who is alt right becomes President!! Oh that's OK though...

When the alt right see a left leaning politician / celebrity bang on about 'trickling down the wealth to the poor' and "we are anti establishments!!" it's all "leftie loons"....
When Trump says it it's all "he's a man for the people!!"

Shocking hypocrisy.

When people go on marches agaisnt capitalism and anti establishment demos they are soap dodging right on students.

When Trump gets people to rise agaisnt capitalism and the establishment, he's just being 'real' and a 'hero for the people'.


Its dense.

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.

It has been hard to watch in some ways. I find myself moving toward the left-wing spectrum of libertarianism. The mainstream left and right have outright lost it. The neo-McCarthyism alone should scare anyone off.

As someone who is neither left nor right I just see how both sets of groups are utter loons, well the vocal ones at least. And then someone like Trump cherry picks the best bits of each side.
The old school right wing Thatcherites should surely be shuddering at a man taking of opening mines and helping the poor get a voice again... but yet they aren't?
Why?

[KrissKross]

minimoog said:

scherzkeks said:

I do know that a manipulative photo comparo was published by the MSM,

Please explain how the photo(s) were manipulated.

Here they are, both taken from the same location with almost identical framing at the same point in time - just before noon - on both days:

scherzkeks said:

as well as a blatant lie about the MLK bust in a further attempt to make Trump appear "racist."

A single journalist reported its removal. When it was pointed out that it was merely hidden behind someone, a retraction and apology was issued. Big st.

I really couldn't care less about Trump or Obama for that matter.

The photo on the left has also been pointed out to look identical to a photo in 2004 when a million women marched in the city for a protest event..

[XM5ER]

p1stonhead said:

XM5ER said:

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?

I was wondering if he wanted a return to maximum coal production or maximum coal jobs. They have an inverse long term relationship it would appear.

It's called automation. Same relationship as mechanization and agriculture.

[FourWheelDrift]

It was also raining, in a Democrat City.

[TheExcession]

scherzkeks said:

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).

Thanks for answering that.

[TheExcession]

FourWheelDrift said:

It was also raining, in a Democrat City.

God's tears man, it was God's tears.

[minimoog]

KrissKross said:

The photo on the left has also been pointed out to look identical to a photo in 2004 when a million women marched in the city for a protest event..

Nah. This is the 2004 March



Very different from the Obama one in 2009. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/01/04/i...

The TV screens being the biggest among several giveaways.

[andymadmak]

tommunster10 said:

The old school right wing Thatcherites should surely be shuddering at a man taking of opening mines and helping the poor get a voice again... but yet they aren't?
Why?

Perhaps because Thatcher was neither anti coal mine nor anti poor,

[KrissKross]

minimoog said:

KrissKross said:

The photo on the left has also been pointed out to look identical to a photo in 2004 when a million women marched in the city for a protest event..

Nah. This is the 2004 March



Very different from the Obama one in 2009. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/01/04/i...

The TV screens being the biggest among several giveaways.

Ok fair point but that image has been used also, maybe incorrectly by some people.

Also if the demographic of people that support Obama live in the same city would it not make sense to have a higher turnout?

[minimoog]

andymadmak said:

Perhaps because Thatcher was neither anti coal mine nor anti poor,

Aye she was just anti-Scargill. The mining industry and its workers were just collateral damage.

[XM5ER]

tommunster10 said:

As someone who is neither left nor right I just see how both sets of groups are utter loons, well the vocal ones at least. And then someone like Trump cherry picks the best bits of each side.
The old school right wing Thatcherites should surely be shuddering at a man taking of opening mines and helping the poor get a voice again... but yet they aren't?
Why?

That is an interesting question, particularly as Thatcherite policies were the opening salvo of globalization.

[minimoog]

KrissKross said:

Ok fair point but that image has been used also, maybe incorrectly by some people.

Yes you're right, early on. I mentioned the incongruity of the stage in the foreground at the time.

[turbobloke]

minimoog said:

andymadmak said:

Perhaps because Thatcher was neither anti coal mine nor anti poor,

Aye she was just anti-Scargill. The mining industry and its workers were just collateral damage.

A fact-free vacuum will fill itself over time but we can speed things up.

The actual decline in mining output, without propaganda and in percentages:

11 years of Thatcher: 33%
11 years before Thatcher: 45%
11 years after Thatcher (Major and Blair): 72%
11 years of New Labour (Blair and Brown): 64%

You ought to be pointing your shoulder chip in another direction not at Thatcher.

[walm]

KrissKross said:

Also if the demographic of people that support Obama live in the same city would it not make sense to have a higher turnout?

Yes. Of course it would. It was no surprise to anyone.

That's why insisting you DID have a higher turnout and accusing the press of fake news etc... marks you out as even more of a muppet.

[anonymous-user]

tommunster10 said:

The old school right wing Thatcherites should surely be shuddering at a man taking of opening mines and helping the poor get a voice again... but yet they aren't?
Why?

Because they have zilch against the coal mines and if it wasn't for the unions and Scargill we would still have a functioning coal industry.

[turbobloke]

V6Pushfit said:

tommunster10 said:

The old school right wing Thatcherites should surely be shuddering at a man taking of opening mines and helping the poor get a voice again... but yet they aren't?
Why?

Because they have zilch against the coal mines and if it wasn't for the unions and Scargill we would still have a functioning coal industry.

And it's Scargill that was against Thatcher, at the root of it.

He thought he could unseat a non-socialist government and got a lesson in reality.

[chrispmartha]

walm said:

KrissKross said:

Also if the demographic of people that support Obama live in the same city would it not make sense to have a higher turnout?

Yes. Of course it would. It was no surprise to anyone.

That's why insisting you DID have a higher turnout and accusing the press of fake news etc... marks you out as even more of a muppet.

Bingo!

Not TB Bingo though, I'm still missing a graph for that.

[KrissKross]

walm said:

KrissKross said:

Also if the demographic of people that support Obama live in the same city would it not make sense to have a higher turnout?

Yes. Of course it would. It was no surprise to anyone.

That's why insisting you DID have a higher turnout and accusing the press of fake news etc... marks you out as even more of a muppet.

Yes I would agree with you on that. Although I have not yet seen the news source where he said that, do you have a link?

There has also been discussion that a lot of people were afraid or even blocked trying to attend the event, would it be fair to say violence against the Trump supporters has been brushed under the carpet my most mainstream media. I do not recall republicans attacking democrats during Obamas inauguration?