Inauguration Day
- Thread starter parmalee
- Start date
I didn't listen to it... but from what I read at the link below (ok, it's just some "real" people giving soundbites) Trump seems to have lived up to expectations, and his supporters are dumb as ****! 
Did anyone actually sit through his speech? Was it anything other than narcissitic, divisive, bitter, vengeful, grievance-laden, threatening, self-serving, and mixed with some self-contradictory gumph (only recognising 2 genders while wanting everyone to be free to be themselves)? Maybe it was the most incredibly articulate and intelligent speech that any President has ever given? I mean, it was certainly the most incredibly articulate and intelligent speech that any President has ever given while being a felon, so that's something, I guess.
Did anyone actually sit through his speech? Was it anything other than narcissitic, divisive, bitter, vengeful, grievance-laden, threatening, self-serving, and mixed with some self-contradictory gumph (only recognising 2 genders while wanting everyone to be free to be themselves)? Maybe it was the most incredibly articulate and intelligent speech that any President has ever given? I mean, it was certainly the most incredibly articulate and intelligent speech that any President has ever given while being a felon, so that's something, I guess.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Did he mention the ceasefire?
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
Apparently he is going to be one of the greatest peacemakers and unifiers in history. I'm sure poaching all the credit for the Biden administrations work on Gaza will be front and center.
Also, there is a fresh grift from the grifter in chief, which is the $TRUMP meme coin. Anyone else feel the urge to pronounce the dollar sign as an S? Every oligarchy needs a $trumpet.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
And if the Trumpistas try to weaponize Love Me I'm a Liberal, the Ochs estate should sue.
Cops of the World, from that same album (the one I owned), will once again prove timely commentary, as Trump slithers away from his previous isolationist stand to his current Imperialism Redux.
It was a somewhat uncomfortably cold day hereabouts, and when I came indoors to warm up after a brief bit of attending to this & that outside - primarily to catch the mid-day news - I found the inaugural coverage on instead. I decided to have a cup O' joe & watch the show...Did anyone actually sit through his speech? Was it anything other than narcissitic, divisive, bitter, vengeful, grievance-laden, threatening, self-serving, and mixed with some self-contradictory gumph (only recognising 2 genders while wanting everyone to be free to be themselves)? Maybe it was the most incredibly articulate and intelligent speech that any President has ever given? I mean, it was certainly the most incredibly articulate and intelligent speech that any President has ever given while being a felon, so that's something, I guess.
Overall, Trump looked tired & worn out to me, not to mention badly made up in his trademark orange look. Even taking the oath of office he sounded tired out & used up.
He seemed to perk up a bit when he began making his official remarks. (He even looked different. Maybe it was something to do with the lighting where the inauguration was taking place.) What struck me most, though - aside from some of the contents of the address - was that he seemed to just rattle it off in a not-too-enthusiastic tone. His loopiest comment was, IMHO, that God had saved him from being assassinated to that he could save America.
A bit later, after some more ceremonial carrying on, he appeared again before what was apparently a group of supporters, and let it all hang out with a sort of rambling monologue which sounded like men in white coats should be leading him off to a padded room whilst telling him to just calm down & it would all be OK..
Even JD Vance and House Speaker "Where's Waldo" Johnson looked pretty uncomfortable at times as they looked on whilst Trump prattled on.
Weird stuff...
There was a time when Ochs's songs were obviously--and brilliantly--satirical. Now, not so much. The fourth verse of "Pretty Smart on my Part", with only the slightest alteration:
I can see them coming...
They're training in the mountains...
They're talking Chinese...
They're spreading disease...
They want to get us,
They want to hurt us,
They want bring us down...
But sometime later when I feel a little safer
We'll assassinate the vice president
And take over the government
And then we're going to fry them
Pretty smart on my part
Sounds very familiar.
Over 1,500 Jan 6 rioters pardoned.
Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, with intention of drilling yet more oil.
Withdrawal from the WHO (ironically for the way they handled Covid - maybe for not supporting his endeavour to have everyone inject bleach?)
Border emergency declared, and military ordered to close the border.
End of birthright citizenship (already subject to legal challenge).
He's also signed an executive order to end "weaponisation" of judicial system, but what it likely means in practice is to identify and end any legitimate law enforcement against those he favours... i.e. doing the exact thing he claims to want to stop. But we'll see.
There are a few other things he's signed.
Nothing on tariffs yet.
Nothing yet to end the Russia/Ukraine conflict.
Nothing yet that will immediately bring down cost of living.
Oh, yes, all federal employees to return to the office. Can't forget that important one.
Anything I've missed?
Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, with intention of drilling yet more oil.
Withdrawal from the WHO (ironically for the way they handled Covid - maybe for not supporting his endeavour to have everyone inject bleach?)
Border emergency declared, and military ordered to close the border.
End of birthright citizenship (already subject to legal challenge).
He's also signed an executive order to end "weaponisation" of judicial system, but what it likely means in practice is to identify and end any legitimate law enforcement against those he favours... i.e. doing the exact thing he claims to want to stop. But we'll see.
There are a few other things he's signed.
Nothing on tariffs yet.
Nothing yet to end the Russia/Ukraine conflict.
Nothing yet that will immediately bring down cost of living.
Oh, yes, all federal employees to return to the office. Can't forget that important one.
Anything I've missed?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
In terms of funding I take it?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
So they will close their office in Washington?
Last edited:
In terms of participating at all. The US currently funds c.20% of the budget for the WHO, and Trump doesn't think it is value for money, thinks the WHO are incompetent, and that the US can obviously do things better on their own. Basically, given that they'll still be able to benefit from what the WHO finds, researches, does etc, the US will now be freeloading off them, although they won't have a seat at the table for decision-making etc. (I'm being a tad flippant). It may just be Trump throwing his weight around again, like a bull in the proverbial shop-of-delicate-porcelain, in order to get a better "deal" for the US, but who knows.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
That will mean job losses, scientists, academics, researchers, administrators, technicians.
Tracking important diseases around the world, known endemic diseases and any novel pathogens that may arise.
If there are significant changes regarding bird flu, swine flu, Bilharzia, malaria, Dengue, Zika etc most of which have all had publications recently in North and south America?
The White House will expect the WHO to be there for them?
Zero Point Native
Registered Senior Member
Please do not troll.
LOL, complainers. Looks like you people have NO CHOICE but to just suck it up and bend over and take it. Sucks for y'all I guess.
Do you have a source for that, because everything I'm reading suggests they actually fund much less than the UK per capita (or at best roughly equal)...
E.g. https://www.who.int/about/funding/contributors/usa
This suggests the two-year funding by the US was $1,284m (or roughly $3.83 per capita - 335m population in 2023) while UK contributed $396m (or roughly $5.80 per capita - 68m population).
Other sources suggest it's closer than that, but I can't find any that suggest the US contribute more per capita. I.e. They put UKs contribution at more than 20% of the US's, while only having 20% of the population.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I am not sure what data you are looking at. Perhaps we can improve our contribution? Still, pretty sure this is better than just pulling out?
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/defa...ghts-18-19.pdf?sfvrsn=cc6f447_1&download=true
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You're right. I let Copilot do the legwork but it didn't catch that the figure was biennium.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
It seems the USA gave US$ 1,284 billion 2022-2023
https://www.who.int/about/funding/contributors/usa
It seems there is two parts of a country’s funding of WHO.
One: The percent base on ‘Assessed contributions ‘
Two: What a country gives voluntarily on top of the ‘assessed contribution’.
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Just noticed...look at the third contributor down, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
https://www.who.int/about/funding/contributors/usa
It seems there is two parts of a country’s funding of WHO.
One: The percent base on ‘Assessed contributions ‘
Two: What a country gives voluntarily on top of the ‘assessed contribution’.
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Just noticed...look at the third contributor down, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Last edited:
This is an American tradition. In our jurisprudence, we have a famous saying about how the right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose. In my time, that argument was adapted for everything: Your right to free speech stops at someone else's ear, for instance.
It was a bipartisan thing, but only ever worked one way, and was never an equal protection or equal justice thing.
And if, in Reagan's America, someone had said, "This is how you end up with fascism"↗, those would have been fighting words.
The idea that your right to exist ends when it displeases a conservative is part of the American heritage. It's been this way all my life. Indeed, we can follow it back to before the Republic; it has always been part of our American experience.
Like I said, the other day↗:
It's one thing to observe the political and historical condition of the anti-trans argument, including its easy and even comfortable coincidence with traditionalist prejudice about the proper role of a woman, but the real problem, here, is that they don't have the science on their side.
So, like creationists, homophobes, and anti-abortionists before them, the anti-trans movement requires redefinition of terms, including medicine, before their arguments have merit. That's why on social media they're just screeching over and over and over again, in hopes of conditioning the audience.
So, like creationists, homophobes, and anti-abortionists before them, the anti-trans movement requires redefinition of terms, including medicine, before their arguments have merit. That's why on social media they're just screeching over and over and over again, in hopes of conditioning the audience.
How far back should we reach, in order to make the point? It's not impossible, in these United States, to find people who both believe in the one-drop rule and worry about miscegenation through transfusion. Compared to what constitutes conception, or an abortifacient, or which born women are men, no, most people would not validate the blood-transfusion fears according to the science. However, when we talk about discontent, and people who feel abandoned or persecuted by society, these folks get counted in with the kitty litter family values totally notaracist anti-woke smarter-than-thou antivax protectionists who require extraordinary justification a priori because their arguments don't work without special accommodation, but we won't refuse outright because we wouldn't want to be seen silencing opposing political views.
The value of tradition in the U.S. is nearly incalculable, and the trick is in how an argument hitches on. In that way, we can really pare down the list: Who appeals to the traditional family? (Heterosupremacism (anti-gay/anti-trans), misogyny, anti-science, anti-miscegenation, Christianist.) Who appeals to traditional pride? (Heterosupremacism/misogyny [fundamentally linked], white supremacism, Christian supremacism.) Thirty years ago, it was an edgy comedy bit about Angry White Male Syndrome, both safer and more rhythmically accessible to leave out "Christian", but that's the thing, it was obvious and implicit. Moreover, it's actually really hard to have this discussion seriously as a society; traditionalism objects.
There is, actually, something of a psychological explanation, a strange manner of envy only achievable in extraordinary circumstances. It's a petulant response to thirty↗, even fifty, years of losing on the merits.