Well that devalues the argument that Clinton wouldn't have made a good president, then, doesn't it?

You can't argue that she would have been dire if it's all argued on "inventing an 'opposite' scenario" and "what ifs" can you?

Face it, at this stage, apart from what has happened in the first 10 days of the Trump presidency, EVERYTHING is a "what if".

His sorry carcass could expire next Friday or he could suddenly turn into a raving libtard, or give press conferences dressed as a chicken, or torch the White House. Nobody knows.

Just because a scenario fits with your views doesn't make it any more valuable or realistic than one that doesn't.

So you believe everything that you read or hear?

Media conspiration predates the historical record.

Then you had better stay out of the the thread.

The thread title is "Will Trump be a Good President?".

Anything anyone says will be a supposition as only time will tell whether he is actually a good president.

Even then it's going to be pretty subjective as there is no real definition of good.

Although he doesn't fit in the Christian version of good as his values are anything but Christian so at least that's one thing cleared up.

I agree it is very over the top, but either way it is pure politics and relationship management, taking into account Trump's mammoth (and so fragile) ego and his own desperate need to be accepted and validated. A state visit and all the surrounding pomp will probably win us a lot of favours down the line.

Who are these "people" that question what you do, and why do you feel compelled to obey them?

Does someone give you a script of what you should protest about?

I'm suprised you didn't realize my last post was copied and pasted and was almost identical to a post you had previously written to me on a different thread

I choose the way I see fit, from various sources and according to credibility I assign them. I do not support nor buy stuff that is not credible, to me. I think expecting truth without checking is lazy. I think expecting entertainment to be honest and authentic or pose for reality, is lazy. I also think blaming media for consumers' poor choices, is lazy. If media do not deliver, do not give them attention. In a free society - media saturate what people demand. If they demand entertainment, why even consider it a source of reality? I think marchers requested entertainment and now they blame medias for being "manipulated". Not even gonna get into how much fun and entertainment marches themselves offer (even without the socializing aspect and pink hats). Which I think is actually a primary reason that protests are popular. Do I think participants honestly want to inspire and change something? No. Too much noise - too little discrete and fruitful work. And it is interesting how alarming the news are about this particular issue, too. More alarm, more visibility, less credit media should probably get. I do not think they are predating. It is another charged term that people use, when they regret consumer's choice. Nobody is forcing consumers to spent attention, time and money on poor quality journalism. But protesters will eat up the alarmist tone, not realizing they are being toyed with, just because media adopt fake voice of solidarity. Give me a break.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

For some reason I've been getting a lot of emails recently from the people who organize thee marches. It might be because I registered on some ativist websites many years ago, or maybe because I signed some petition about something totally unconnected. Anyway, these emails do paint a picture that says in very alarmist terms that Trump is a monster who is about to eat the world and there is only one way to stop him, and that is to support this march or sign this petition or whatever. Obviously that's simplistic and I would assume that most people who do go on the march understand it's not that simple. But there are always simple folks who do.

A lot of the protesters we see on TV are not real activists. They are goaded by a feeling of "taking part" in something. When interviewed, they are not able to clearly articulate what it is they are protesting about. Merely a sense of "outrage" with no particular point to it. Its driven by a network of professional "activists".

Mainstream media is driving a concocted and artificial narrative. It doesn't report on the real sentiments of real people. True progressive activists I know are more enraged by the corruption in the DNC than Donald Trump.

The MSM has become a political entity instead of unbiased reporting. They are diverting attention away from stories that truly expose deep seated corruption in the political media world. It is also protecting itself. I saw a poll that only 15% of Americans believe the narrative coming out of MSM.

If entertainment and media are the same, don't you see the contradiction?

Demand is created by the news media just as the demand for useless products is created by the advertising industry. It's incredibly naive to think that the owners of major media don't push an agenda - have you ever watched fox news? msm?

All the noise certainly smacks of being disingenuous. We know he's an arse, knew that before he came POTUS. So what do we do now, continue to make fluffy protests, yet as other posters have mentioned, the far left would never scream and shout about what matters across the UK at the moment - yeah a good time for May to surreptitiously suck back into the treasury millions earmarked for children's education. Makes me livid.. guess the noise has its uses, it would seem.

Even though, a state visit is certainly OTT, I don't think for a minute that anything is ever done via the establishment without intended economic gain, and the UK certainly need him on their side if Brexit is about to happen. Just every day business.. the same as always.

It's ok - I don't think the teacher will notice just this once...

You see? The interesting bit is that Loz "thanked" you for it which probably proves that everyone's view is highly subjective, not to mention influenced and reinforced by those with a similar view.

Someone who is known to have an opposite view makes a point, which is then predictably challenged (or ignored if it's valid and no sensible counter argument can be made).

But the same point, when used by someone with an agreeable view to you is then found to be perfectly valid.

Boom - echo chamber in the making. Nobody is immune, old boy!

Madonna should have ben more serious with her promise:

"A PATRIOTIC model is complaining of jaw ache after vowing to perform oral sex on 19 million men who voted “No” in the recent Italian referendum.

Paola Saulino, 27, has so far fellated around 400 politically active gents as part of her nationwide “Pompa (pump) Tour”, The Sun reported.

The actress pledged to pleasure everyone who voted against Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s constitutional reforms last November.

And after a resounding 59 per cent of the electorate voted “No”, principled Paola kept her promise and has bravely embarked on an epic sex quest."

http://www.news.com.au/finance/econo...164a3a0ea39bbf

Tom

Its a political opportunity for everyone and anyone to proclaim their moral values by pointing at Trump, without actually having to have any.

I saw the parliamentary debate last time. One MP after another getting up to advertise their "moral values". It was a sickening display of self-aggrandizement, free campaign air time, all on taxpayer money.

Why would they want to miss any such opportunity?

Indeed he was.
Problem is that many people just saw him making "campaign promises" and never expected him to actually go through with it.

The situation was worsened by the chaotic way it was introduced.
The Departments responsible to implement the policy were never instructed on how to implement this EO.
When countries turned to their local US Embassy for advice they found all the Ambassadors had been fired and no yet replaced so there was nobody officially responsible to talk to.
Same with the US State dept. where all the leadership was gone.

This left officials with only the option of talking to Trump's inner circle whose roles and responsibilities are not yet clearly defined. There were different messages coming from them and which one was the "right message"?

Green card holders were being turned away which must have been unnerving for green card holders from other countries who thought their position was secure so long as they did not transgress the rules!

__________________
It is naive to assume my posts are my own work

Is that any better than you with your lazy, insular and ill-thought out generalising, and sweeping judgments?

Pretty much both bottom-feeder type attitudes, wouldn't you say?

I totally think mainstream media in the US is plagued with infotainment, just like school system is plagued by edutainment. I don't blame the popularity of this easy fun on media, but on consumers who exercise their liberty to invest their time/money/attention wherever they want. Do you spend hours in your car listening to a radio station that fills your cortexes with more commercials than worthy data? I doubt it. Why blame the radio when they are making cash as anyone else? Do you go and trash a store that sells esthetically offensive socks you would never buy? I doubt it. Protesters probably would. Well, they might buy the ugly socks to unite doing something together.

I have to say - as long as there are free chanels of comm, some idea of respect and willingness to build, all is good. I am not so worried about the US. I am a bit worried about mass consumption of low quality stuff just because it is called "true", "real", etc. I don't blame the media who label themselves as the most authentic (to sell), I blame the consumers. If one picks something without doing homework, one should assume responsibility and learn. To shout and protest might feel good for a moment, but will not compensate for the missed lesson to learn.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

I'm not so sure. The coverage I saw in Manchester (seeing as I'm currently in the Granada tv area) was very genuine. I think it's different looking at a protest on national news than on local news, when you know the geography of the area and can work out the expanse of the march. Plus, there's more than a smattering of Americans in this neck of the woods and they were out in force, including the American history lecturer team from UMIST.

This was the reaction to a 90 day ban and I have absolutely no doubt that it was the tip of the ice berg to come with regard to EO travel bans.

About 35-40% of my closest friends are in the teaching profession at various levels. They've spent the last 2yrs protesting education cuts and there are further protests planned.

I don't agree that he will be a fair and reasonable partner when it comes to trade. If we must turn our backs on Europe, we cannot put too much stall in America or it really would be out of the frying pan into the fire.

Don't you think the likes of Fox News are simply catering to what their target audience want to see and hear, just as left wing news outlets are tailored to their respective audiences.

The thing with political agendas in the entertainment business is that people who have agendas often let their agendas get in the way of business decsions, so in the long run they lose.

Succesful journalists and entertainers are often cynics.

Yes and no. Yes, Fox and MSNBC do the same thing. No, it's not just because it's what the public 'wants to hear'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model