That is beautiful isn't it? LOL they're not lies they're alternative facts. Genius in its stupidity.

Don't forget negative profits...

Honestly, I think I feel more sympathetic for Trump at this point compared to the media. Especially when they make threats that contradict their job description.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a29e1c444870

You're correct that Zucker should have never said this. All CNN needs to do is train their cameras on Trump and 6 months from now he'll have dug his own grave. The man is still in campaign mode. It's hard to keep talking about 'American carnage' when you're the man in the big chair. Americans have short attention spans; Obama was blamed for the 2008 financial collapse, even though it was the culmination of 8 years of Bush's policies.

But this is kind of like an anti-police protester spitting on cops, lopping piss-balloons, etc. and then being shocked when it takes longer than usual for them to respond to a 911 call at that guy's house. Unfair, yes. Understandable, also yes.

I quite like this adversarial relationship though. If anything, it will hasten the demise of his political movement. I mean, the man can't help but lie. His inaugural event was under-attended compared to past inaugurations. The Women's March brought in more than double the people but he could not stop himself from both insinuating that they were poor losers and lying about the turnout. Small lies beget big ones. He'll be caught in a doozy he can't walk back from soon enough.

You know how many times this has been said over the past few years? He's the President.

A quick thought on the protests in general:

I live in Northeast DC and walked down to the Capitol around 1:30 on Saturday to see what could be seen. I was surprised and pleased to find 600,000 of my closest friends in good spirits, holding clever signs (my favorite was along the lines of 'if I make my uterus a corporation will you stop regulating it?'), and feeling the camaraderie of being surrounded by ideological allies. I saw families, groups of 'frat star' bros, beautiful women, crust punk-types, old people, children, and one guy in a wizard robe. It was truly awesome.

Outside of the violence on Friday (committed by anarchist groups, NOT representative of the anti-Trump protesters) the rally was peaceful, massive, and inspiring. I'm looking forward to the next one - might actually make a sign this time instead of just observing.

There is a world of difference from being a candidate and being the president. He has to either a) follow-through on his promises (the wall, banning immigration from Muslim countries) or b) not follow-through. Either he does a, which appeals to 30% of the voting public (well, that's how many voted for him, it remains to be seen how many of those were pure anti-Clinton votes) and damns him even more in the eyes of everyone else or he does b, in which case 70% of the public still thinks he's an ass, but now he's told lies he can't walk away from and the 30% that voted for him feel betrayed. It's a no-win. If you have another path to a victorious Trump presidency I'm (and I'm guess he is) all ears.

Serious question, do you support a border wall and a ban on Muslim's entering the US?

Communists (not anarchists) and others were destroying things before, during and after the inauguration, and I was glad to see that the Women's Marches didn't result in the same violence. I wasn't expecting them to either. And whilst I have my own differences in opinion with those who attended the Women's March, I find it hard to complain about the events as a whole.

I'm fine with a border wall, though I don't really see how much difference it would make. If people wanna illegally enter the country, they will probably continue to do so in another way.

I disagree with a Muslim ban, although it doesn't look like it was a serious policy. Obviously you can't ban Muslims from entering the country because people can lie. But I don't see any harm in regulating immigration from the more radical Islamic countries.

Hmm, well the black clothing and black flags they were carrying are more associated with anarchist groups than communists (which tend to embrace red). Regardless, it was a tiny minority of people in the city. 230 or so arrested, one can guess about 5 times that number involved in illegal, destructive behavior, out of 500,000-1,000,000 people in the city in support or opposition to the new president. source 1 source 2

You've hit the nail on the head. A border wall is a essentially a symbolic gesture. Much like the 'America First' language used by the president, directly channeling fascist rhetoric used in here in the 20's and 30's, it sets a negative tone about our view of our own country, our distrust of others, and a desire for insularity (which runs counter to both conservatism and capitalism - two, former, pillars of the GOP). Instead of addressing actual immigration issues (which I don't have the space or inclination to get into right now), Trump has proposed an expensive, symbolic edifice that plays to the core prejudices of many of his supporters. This is candidate Trump. It shouldn't be President Trump, but we haven't seen much difference yet.

Glad to hear you're not supportive of religious tests to enter the country. I don't think you'll much push-back on the left if you support increased vetting for those traveling from war-torn countries. You certainly won't get any from me.

Common ground - it's a beautiful thing.

1. Bush didn't help things by any means, but it was Bill Clinton who created the foundation for the 2008 financial collapse. Bush's biggest failing was that he didn't put anything in place to prevent things from turning out as they did.

2. His inauguration wasn't underattended: that's spin based on a photograph that was intentionally shot earlier in the day than the corresponding time to Obama's inauguration. Clever, but just proves yet again that the media don't check their sources well.

I'm pretty sure you mean Reagan, not Clinton.

Uh huh. What superior media did you find this out from?