http://blogs-images.forbes.com/alexk....jpg?width=960

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas".

Interesting update .. they have pulled out saying " “Our decision is based SOLELY on the respect and gratitude we have for Bruce and the E Street Band.”

It's the widest margin in the history of the USA. Nothing else has ever come that close - Where the electoral college voted for a president with 3 million less votes.

Now the question in my mind is: Did the electoral college just do its job as a "checks and balances system" and elect the person that will best govern the American people despite the popular vote, or did they just take part in the very kind of decision making that the Electoral College was designed to prevent?

History will be the judge of that...

So when they can't go after the main artists, liberal fans go after the tribute bands next. Classy.

History won't give a crap.

Yep, I came back to this thread to mention this. I think I'm in the minority in saying that I think all of this has been very unfair to the band. I could see some backlash if they accepted a job knowingly and specifically in honor of Trump; I think in that case, they should have respect for Bruce's beliefs. But in this case, they accepted the job before the candidates were even known, much less before they knew who the winner was. The party isn't even for Trump- it's for New Jersey residents who currently reside in D.C.

I do believe it was just business to them. In fact, they played for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's inauguration as governor, ironically after Christie had asked Bruce to play, and Bruce turned him down because of politics (despite the fact that Christie is a huge Springsteen fan). Nobody made a big deal about it then.

I do feel sorry for the abuse the band members have taken on Facebook, Twitter, and the like, and I also blame the media for inaccurate reporting that lead to much misunderstanding. The band initially said that they would pull out if Bruce asked them to, which as far as anyone knows, he did not (nor did he comment at all on the matter). If I had to guess, he might not have been happy about the situation, but having come up through the same ranks as a working musician, I would think he would understand the "just business" aspect of the situation. Two band members did comment on Twitter and Facebook, and both appeared neutral to supportive. Steve Van Zandt tweeted:

Regardless of what the tribute band members say, I do think they gave into public pressure, which I understand (they have to make a living), but I think it's sad. They seem rather overwhelmed by the controversy; one of the members stated to Rolling Stone:

This is very interesting, Caryl- I did not know this (I was aware of the info you posted regarding licenses for live performances). I agree with you that it would probably be difficult for Bruce to demonstrate some damage over this, not to mention that many of Bruce's fans are Trump supporters (notice that Bruce has spoken harshly against Trump himself, but seems to sympathize with his voters), and I think it would make Bruce appear as a bully himself if he were to take any legal action.

Thank God the inauguration is only days away, so obviously Meat is not playing. Even bands who had gigs booked before the election are catching hell from the tolerant who believe in everyone's rights (oh, wait).

I doubt Meat was officially asked and if so, his back issues would make it virtually impossible. So I'm sure he would have said he was physically unable. It would have required getting the band back together and some rehearsal so it was never planned to happen.

Really we hope Meat is taking care of his health and concentrating on getting well regardless of any other political things. He can't play a gig of any kind now without pain at least until he gets better. If he ever decides to do any more live shows he will have to be very careful with his back and knees. The travel would be that much more difficult. I really want him to do what is best for him.

After 40 or more years as a performer he deserves the chance to take a rest while he decides what - if anything- he wants to do.

No, it isn't .. because it's just business. But as I said, one has to exercise judgement and accept consequences, which shouldn't be abuse but may well incur disappointment.

Agree with all of that

Yes I agree it would. I suspect most tributes respect the artists concerned, and a quiet word would suffice if the artist had strong feelings. I thought the Right of Publicity was interesting though. I remember he whose name is **** set up a site where he actively encouraged those who mistakenly assumed it was of the artist himself. They got him on cyber-squatting, but this could have equally applied perhaps?

Agreed. He put in an appearance at a Bose outlet in Austin recently, so the rehab must be progressing, and as far as I know he wants still to support the premieres of the musical. I think touring is less likely, but I hope he is able to resume his acting career. He loves and lives to perform, and I'm sure there is plenty of film and TV gas in the tank ;)

Someone woke up in a ~~~~ing great mood :P

I disagree.

If trump does stupid shit, which he probably will, and causes the worst disaster for the USA in modern history, historians WILL WANT TO KNOW WHY.

Yeah, I think it's going too far, but I think it speaks to the strong feelings people have over this election. We've had plenty of Republican presidents, and there has never been controversy like in this case- it's unprecedented (yeah, I went there :twisted:).

I believe the left is actually very tolerant; I've seen plenty of mocking and childish name-calling going on the last eight years coming from the other side, and no one called them "snowflakes" and told them to just get over it. They opposed Obama at every turn, but now we're supposed to just give Trump a chance? Why?

I agree that it would be a shame if Meat had to retire completely from performing. Hopefully, he will recover enough to work in some capacity.

I disagree.
Over the last 1 1/2 years I've seen from the left / so called tolerants / liberals:

• A Labour parliament member call on UK voters to not listen to white old men, even though a white old man is in charge of their party (Labour has never had a female leader compared to conservatives) and it was still mostly white old men who ensured we do not speak German in this country. Had it not been for selfless white old men in the UK my family would never have existed.
• Left wing press and some associated with government try to use the Jo Cox murder to push for an EU remain vote and paint those who wanted to leave the EU as fascist Nazis who were responsible for her death.
• Call for political assassinations, mostly of Trump (including a Guardian journalist who wrote this). I think Trump's life is in far more danger than Obama's. I don't want to see anything bad happen to politicians from any side.
• Ganging up of liberals with @jack of Twitter (backed by Saudi money) to get many prominent right wing voices banned on that social media platform which has led to the setup of gab.ai. This happened whilst Twitter never took a stance against obvious bullies such as the sick one who annoyed Patti Russo for months. (I filed numerous Twitter complaints, no action was taken mostly).
• It appears now socially acceptable to write things such as "Goodmorning everyone (except all the white people)" on places such as Twitter. I doubt such voices are from those who would vote republican / conservative or UKIP.
• Been myself and those I agree with called a racist countless of times when those with other views lose the argument on rationality and facts. I think the term snowflake originally was much less bad than "racist". But to be honest all labels are now losing their worth since they are being used so frequently for very modest opposing views. Someone concerned about immigration is not a racist. In fact I would argue many who support limitless Eastern European immigration into the UK (mostly same race as white Brits) support racism through that policy since there is undoubtedly less opportunity for people from commonwealth (including other races) countries (see UK minimum earnings rules imposed on none EU immigrants recently). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone who can speak and write our native language will fair better here quicker regardless of race. Does it make me a languistist? (is there such a thing?) I don't give a crap!

Even here on MLUKFC I've seen hardly anyone speak out against the anti Trump camp even though I have received several messages from individuals saying they (quietly) agree with me or certain aspects of my arguments.
In other words some seem to be afraid to write what they really feel on this board in case of backlash. I have no problem defending my case against 4, 5 or 50 of those who think otherwise on here. Do I think it is a proper reflection of the voting public what is posted on here and in particular this thread? No.

Left tolerant? Nah...

And if you are a 100% liberal and happy about that, before you click dislike on this post consider this video of what liberal virtue signalling sometimes actually means... yes it means you could be the racist whether intentionally or not:

YouTube Video

Given no-one has given you any "backlash" on here for your views, that's just daft. As Julie has said, the discussion here has been reasoned and generally courteous without rancour or name-calling. To give reasoned disagreement is not "backlash", and I would have no sympathy for anyone who is not prepared to join the discussion because of fear. They may be people who prefer not to or don't "talk politics" ... that's a choice they make. It's their right to choose .. but nothing on this thread would imply they would be attacked if they did, so I disagree with your assumption Andrew.

Excellent post. Yes there are few of us willing to defend Trump openly but I don't care either. One post said Trump did not win any majority and called for facts, I posted the actual map with the majority of states red for Trump and got a dislike LOL.

I am on other forums that make this look like a Sunday School picnic. I'd rather not have that political stuff in the Meat Loaf section of this forum. At least move it to where those of us who don't want it here won't have to read it mixed in with other topics.

I wonder if Meat would want this to devolve into politics? There are thousands of boards and reddits for politics.

A dislike/disgreement is hardly a "backlash".

As I've said before, the thread title invited it by asking "Should Meat Loaf play at Donald Trump's Inauguration Ceremony?" rather than for eg "Do you think Meat WILL .. etc" No-one is forced to read any thread, but if you reads this one it is reasonable to expect people to be talking about the political aspect rather than the fee offered.

I spoke earlier in the thread about the liberal, social elite who demonise people if they dare to share an opinion that they don't agree with.

In the UK if somebody openly says they voted for Brexit they are given the tag as an uneducated racist. I'm guessing a similar thing is happening in the US?

Personally I don't have strong political views but I have seen an increasingly amount of snobbish bullying from the liberal, social elite in recent years. Ironically this behaviour has probably led people to vote for Trump, Brexit etc

You are demonizing others by calling ALL those that don't support Trump "The social, liberal elite who think they're better than the average man/woman in the street talk in an articulate, patronising way of how terrible Trump is" And by calling those that don't support Brexit, similar names. It is Ok for YOU to make judgements and denonize others by calling them names You can't have it both ways. It is called hypocrisy and makes you a hypocrit!

I didn't call ALL those who didn't support Trump as the social, liberal elite. In fact it is probably a very small minority. Most people accept people have different views. Personally I would have preferred Trump not to have won but I respect people who voted either way as everyone's situation is different.

But to be fair that isn't what you implied is it? You wrote
Saying if someone "openly says" (as if it's something that has to be kept secret) they voted Remain they are given the tag of "uneducated racist" does suggest it's far more common than not, rather than a small minority.

I think we know now that many voted for Brexit as a protest against government .. numbers of them have since said they regret doing this. From what I have seen and heard people say some clearly DID vote on "immigration" issues (despite the fact that we have always had absolute control of immigration, it is migrant EU workers that Brexit would end, not immigration per se). I know people who voted who are not in the least racist, but voted to leave because they are concerned about housing, genuinely believed the EU costs us more than we gain, thought we could stay in the free market even if we left, or believed the mystical figure that would be pumped into the NHS immediately (the last accepted a lie). Some are pissed now. Do I think some voted without really knowing much about the basic facts, cost, implications? Yes, and probably on both sides. The "campaign" was misleading on one side and woefully absent on the other. So some will have voted in ignorance .. which doesn't mean they are stupid, just lacking clear information.

In the same way, some will have voted for Trump because they vote Republican, full stop. Some clearly fear immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans either racism, bigotry, or xenophobia. Trump played to this very colourfully and with disappointing success. Others voted for him because they genuinely believe he will deliver jobs, wealth, success. Some voted for change, any change. Of course not all who voted for Trump are "ignorant" or "uneducated" .. but I'd argue for eg that those who think repealing Obamacare is not the same as repealing the ACA are certainly ill-informed!

There are those on BOTH sides who demonise those who voted the other way. Many Republicans demonised Obama throughout his administration. They were not a "liberal social elite" .. and anyway elite means the best, and the best do not descend to overt attacks, rudeness, bad language, name-calling, and demonisation whether they are liberal or not. They get informed, they attend to what is said and argue their case cogently, they reason. Shouting and screaming, rudeness and ill manners lose any argument. The wise do their best, accept what happens but if the outcome is one they fear, remain vigilant, hold those in power to account, and protest peacefully in the face of events they see as detrimental.

Neither side has the monopoly on demonising, and it's wrong to suggest any one does.

I agree with most of this Caryl.

As we are talking on a Meat Loaf forum maybe we should use Meat Loaf as an example of how to behave re politics. I liked the way he didn't publically get drawn into the Trump vs Clinton debate. I do however think he was holding back some foreceful views but I may be wrong.

Other artists who I will class as the liberal, social elite were telling people how to vote and subsequently demonised voters post the election.

In some ways I am disappointed with myself for getting involved in this debate as I honestly don't have strong political views. I am all for the centre ground on the whole.

As Meat once said in an interview "religion and politics...no way we're going to talk about rock n roll".

I'm sure you do realize that the map is misleading, in that he could have won a state by only a few votes and it would be colored red. Additionally, many of the red states are those that are most sparsely populated- not really representative of a huge majority.

As am I, and it's based on that experience that I wrote my opinion above that I thought the left was more tolerant (maybe I should have said "Democrats" or "left-leaning" instead), in that the majority of the racist, bullying, name-calling comments come from those who identify themselves as Republicans, conservatives, and/or Trump supporters. It seems they aren't capable of expressing an opinion without using terms such as "libtard", which is offensive on several levels.

But yet, Trump himself made a comment while campaigning that could have been interpreted to encourage the assassination of Hillary Clinton.

No, those people just write other racist things, such as the nonprofit director who called Michelle Obama an "ape in heels" in a Facebook post.

No, not necessarily; but many racists are concerned about immigration. The difference between the two is the reason behind the concern and how one proposes to address those concerns.

I'd never call myself 100% liberal; I lean that way, but my views are (like most people's, I think) actually somewhere in the middle. I don't personally have a problem with voter ID laws; in fact, the first time I heard that such laws could be considered racist, I thought it was kind of ridiculous, because I had never come across any people of color who didn't have any ID. But, my experience is in a large city (much like the people featured in the video); if one were to go to poor rural areas, you might have different answers. Although, that would be a factor of financial status, as opposed to race (though the two are often related). Are a large enough number of people affected that it's a legitimate concern? I honestly don't know- where I live, I think it's a non-issue. But, you can't make federal laws that apply to some areas and not to others. Not to mention, there are other means to identify voters besides asking for a photo ID (I actually had this conversation with an election judge the last time I voted, after the woman before me questioned why she didn't check for ID).

Yes, but in the case of Trump, for example, the man was endorsed by the KKK and didn't immediately (if he ever did at all) renounce them. If his supporters disliked being called racist, they should have called him on that lack of action.

I agree, Caryl- well said. I think this video illustrates your last point- it's of course not a "scientific" poll, but I think it probably represents typical citizens:

YouTube Video

Before the election, I was called "elitist" here because I made a comment that I thought some people who voted for Trump might later be regretting that decision. I am Facebook friends with a former classmate who has been a Trump supporter; as the parent of a special-needs child, she is now (rightfully) concerned about his nominee for Secretary of Education, based on answers she gave in her confirmation hearing. (How she could have rationalized and excused Trump's mocking of a disabled reporter is beyond me- I think she fell for the "he didn't really do that" spin.) I won't go so far as to presume that my friend is regretting her decision, but it illustrates that when you vote for a candidate, you also vote for whomever that candidate might also place in key cabinet or (in the U.S.) Supreme Court positions. Likewise, some people who supported the repeal of "Obamacare" might not have fully realized they were affecting their own healthcare.

Can you give an example of an artist demonizing voters after the election?

you are very very meanspirited take a chill pill and relax.

Wow, so it seems there's a part 2 to the above video; some interesting responses!

YouTube Video

Not sure if that is aimed at me or Boston?! If it is aimed towards me sorry for any offence I am just trying to stick up for the "silent majority". Or silent 49%...lets not get into the "majority" debate again!

It looks like a few people are starting to feel buyer's remorse already:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...cnkdj64idiy66r

Of course it is aimed at Boston. Jeez.

Now there is a fair and balanced "media organisation".
It has totally changed my opinion....not. Let me know when a nation can pay down its deficit, pay for social care, pay for infrastructure solely based on feelings rather than via work, taxes and trade, then I might start listening to them.

People should judge presidents on their results rather than based on judgements by news/media organisations.
I was impressed when Obama won. Seemed a much better choice than McCain (who seems a lot less balanced or stable than Trump I would say). However I'm not sure what the African Americans can really praise Obama for on the large scale after all this time. Hence perhaps many lacked enthusiasm to come out to the voting booths this time round, especially for Hillary.

African American Labor participation has totally not improved in 8 years.
http://media.mlxxfc.net/Screen Shot ...t 09.35.41.png

I guess one can perhaps be happy Obama at least didn't make things a whole lot worse. :shrug:
Obamacare? Meh maybe it works for some. I understand the concept and idea and it sounded great. But from what I understand the premiums and deductibles are so high for many people, there seems little point to having it at all. It's like those dodgy paying insurance on your mortgage scams, which when you qualify for using it (when unable to work through injury or whatever) only lasts for two years and when you look at the premiums you paid is less than the value you can ever take out.
Overall American healthcare (if you can pay for it at least) seems far better than that in most other countries. Far more advanced procedures such as proton therapy for children with almost incurable brain diseases happen over there far more than here in the UK from what I know.

In the UK we are now having a lot of problems with the NHS with regards to waiting lists (I don't get how Jeremy Hunt just stays in that position for years - must be me).

If I phone my doctor I will be lucky to be able to see her still this month or early Feb. If people think this is totally unrelated to immigration (whether directly or indirectly) then I think they are really wrong. You cannot continue to have 330K+ extra people pouring in, most having salaries in the tax free allowance range and not build extra hospitals, schools or doctor's practitioners. I really think people fail to realise that the net immigration figures alone are at the moment higher than the average natural increase of population we enjoyed between 1900 and 2000. Over 100 years we are talking 33 million if these figures do not change. I actually do not think there is a respectable UK political party out there taking this seriously at all, not even UKIP. Let me be clear: I am not against immigrants at all, I am against the immigration policies. The EU freedom of movement seems blackmail for allowing free trade. Large corporations can enjoy cheap labor at a cost of favouring Eastern Europeans over Brits in many sectors of employment now (I have seen this with my own eyes if people think I am basing this on the Daily Mail). I am a foreign born Brit so somewhat of an immigrant myself. I just think ultimately it is best to have a very very low net immigration figure, close to zero if possible. This is the best for other countries where people are emigrating from (no-one ever thinks about that it seems) and best for the UK. I do of course understand all the reasons why people want to come to the UK. But I think ghetto forming is very, very bad. Sweden has problems with this now, Bradford in the UK has problems, areas in London and Luton too. Not integration in my opinion and past government policies have really failed these areas and it does not seem to be changing. Ironically it is usually in these areas where people always vote for more socialist / liberal policies - make the government give more free stuff- rather than structural changes that could lead to more employment or opportunity for all.

In any case Trump is elected president of the USA, here in the UK we will have a conservative government until at least 2020 and probably well beyond going by what the alternatives are offering (mostly backwards retake the EU referendum ideas etc). People can keep on crying and talking their own countries down because they disagree with past decisions or past votes and elections. Ultimately I think that is a recipe for failure for a country and for the people themselves regardless of who is president, political leader or party and just trying to make the best of things.

Michelle Obama stating "there is now no hope" was totally shameful in my opinion. Disgusting remark.

Inauguration is almost here. The time is right (for me at least) to move on and just live life. All one can do is vote for who and what they think is best. Beyond that hindsight debates such as this, although interesting are definitely not the best use of one's time.

Without in any way wishing to denigrate the contents of previous posts, surely now that we know Loaf-at-Trump isn't happening, it's time to let this thread expire (??)

I agree. I had some facts I was going to post, but let it go. This thread is a moot point. I will be avoiding politics on this board from here on. I get enough of that on another site and actually come here to think about Meat Loaf and his music to get away from all the stuff going on in the "real world" and think about "Neverland" for a bit.

I've enjoyed reading this thread, it's livened up the board, so thanks to all that have contributed.

I'd just like to make a couple more points, and then I will let it be:

Andrew, you make a very rational and reasoned argument. Perhaps if the current resident of the White House had been able to do the same, he would have garnered more support. Instead, he preyed on people's fears, saying that Mexicans "are criminals, they're rapists, they're bringing drugs.." and we're going to build a wall to keep them out. Do you see the difference? Can you understand why many consider that racist, or at least xenophobic? The people who are risking their lives to come across the border are for the most part, regular people who just want a better life for themselves and their families. He can build all the walls he wants, and he's not going to stop the drug cartels- they are too firmly established in the U.S. already. Ironically, the biggest Mexican criminal of them all was just brought to New York last night.

Well, I disagree. I think we need to hold our leaders accountable, and take them to task when we don't agree with them. Otherwise, what is the point of having elections? We might as well have a dictator if we're just going to shrug our shoulders and make the best of it.

Many people are feeling that way right now; not good at all for a new administration.

On a lighter note Trump's Mrs is very easy on the eye

I agree Julie. The whole basis of a democracy is that we don't have to "suck it up" as so many Trump supporters are saying (and many Brexit supporters here). We need to hold those in power accountable, speak up in protest when they propose things we believe are detrimental. This is NOT about loving your country or not, nor about "taking it down", nor should it be derided or dismissed as "crying", nor are those of us who are vigilant, stand up and speak out "snowflakes". It is a vital and essential part of any democracy, and shows love of one's country and concern for its people, all of them, whether or not we are personally affected.

To have effect it should be done with clear reasoning not hate, with a calm voice rather than anger and violence, and with measured words not name-calling. But it is an important and constitutional monitoring process and debate, and essential if one is not finally left saying "Then they came for me .. and was no-one left to speak for me".

And the removal within hours of pages from the White House website of the climate change web page, and the healthcare, civil rights, disabled worker rights and LGBT sections, will do nothing to allay fears and offer hope. The page on climate change was replaced with a page entitled "An America First Energy Plan" that ignores climate change entirely and says, "President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule."

The page on civil rights was replaced with a page entitled "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community" that replaces concerns with how police act with a demand for more cops. It also paints predominantly black inner cities as shooting galleries. It includes the statement "In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent", which is false: homicides in Washington, D.C. were down in 2016 over 2015.

Obama's WhiteHouse.gov page on his first day in office featured a slate of issues he campaigned on; Trump's White House page doesn't even have a policy page on his signature campaign issue: immigration. His campaign website was more robust, featuring pages on a variety of issues and including press releases related to the black community, like "DONALD J. TRUMP’S NEW DEAL FOR BLACK AMERICA." Now the words "black" or "African-American" do not appear once in any policy sheets on WhiteHouse.gov.

However, the website does make reference to Melania Trump's jewellery line. How is that separating government and family business?

In fairness I think the protests have been very modest. A couple of shop windows smashed by a few thugs.

The left wing media are almost encouraging people to protest.

Let's see how he gets on....hopefully he'll become more humble and inclusive!

On a British point of view it is great to see The Churchill bust back in the Oval office that Obama so crudely chucked out!

Oh yes, in fact most of the protest marches have been peaceful. It's those that weren't that get the fingers and memes flapping on Facebook ;)

As far as the Churchill bust brou haha is concerned .. the bust in question, by British sculptor Jacob Epstein, was given to President George W Bush by the British government in 2001 and was placed in the Oval Office. But the statue was not donated, it was simply on loan for Bush’s term in office (a loan which the British government decided to extend when Bush was re-elected in 2004). Churchill disappeared from the White House Oval Office in 2009, when the loan ended, at the same time that Obama moved in.

Most news stories, and Boris, neglected to mention that there are two Churchill busts – the one on loan to Bush from 2001 to 2009, and a second bust which the White House has had since the 1960s and still has to this day, which is immediately outside the Oval Office. I think it's completely understandable and appropriate that the first black President of the USA decided to put a bust of Rev Martin Luther King Jr in there to daily "remind him of the people who helped get him there.

From this British point of view I have more concern about the isolationist determination of Trump and his threats to withdraw from NATO than I do about whether a copy of Churchill's bust is one side of the Oval Office doors than the other .. and I'm quite sure that he removed the one of MLK because Obama had put it there, nothing to do with Churchill or the British (although as he seems reluctant to get full facts before acting, he may well have seized on the Churchill bust to replace it because he erroneously believed Obama had actually moved the original one out, rather than simply have placed the copy immediately outside when the original was returned to the UK).

Very well-said, Caryl. I might argue that it is in fact patriotic to question authority (and remove it if necessary) that appears damaging to your country.

And Trump did a pretty good job himself of "taking down" the country in his inaugural speech. :|

I find that page extremely troubling, and I support the Law Enforcement Community. The wording to me sounds threatening: " The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it." How does he propose to do this? Send in the National Guard? Declare Martial Law (which can suspend people's rights)?

"Supporting law enforcement means supporting our citizens’ ability to protect themselves. We will uphold Americans’ Second Amendment rights at every level of our judicial system."

The Second Amendment reads as such: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

He seems so committed to upholding the Second Amendment that he seems to have forgotten about the First, which gives the people the right to peaceful assembly, and also to freedom of speech and the press:

"Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter." More preying on fear.

We've seen his current war with the media; he's threatened to kick the press corps out of the White House unless they are nice to him. The first thing a tyrant wants to do is suppress the press.

Trump has mentioned Chicago specifically a couple of times; I won't deny that there is a real violence problem in some areas. And we do need more police, at least in this city, as they are short-staffed. I'm also all for a better relationship between the community and the police, but I don't want to see a police state. I was too young to remember the civil uprising and riots in the 60's, but my mother told me about how frightening it was; I fear we may be headed back there.

Am I being overly dramatic? I truly hope so. But it seems to me it's being plainly spelled out, and just reinforces what he said all through his campaign. People say, "Oh, just wait until he's president. You'll see, he'll change." I tend to believe what Maya Angelou wisely said, "When people show you who they are, believe them."


Well, he had a chance to become humble and inclusive beginning with his inauguration speech; he did not.

It does appear that the protests have so far been pretty peaceful, for the most part (we women know how to do it ;)). There have been a few sporadic incidents that for all we know could have been started by the right to make the other side look bad and incite unrest. I don't know what to believe anymore.

(I know I said I'd let it be- I guess I went back on that.)

It's interesting that you say that; I kind of had the feeling that he chose to take his oath on Abraham Lincoln's Bible, because Obama had been the first president since Lincoln to do so (which I thought was powerfully symbolic); almost like he had to pee on Obama's territory. I just found it distasteful.

Yes he did .. the picture of a crumbling landscape with rusting factories like tombstones across the land. But there was no way he was going to pay one cent's tribute to just how far Obama had taken the country from crisis to recovery, not even to say 'We've started the recovery process, now here's more work to be done'

And you are spot on in saying his address was far from humble, far from inclusive. I found it rather frightening, just as his rally speeches, which this closely resembled.

As you say, he continues to whip up fear, and his desperate need to control the press, to react irrationally to any perceived criticism, even as we've seen today to obliterate anything that wounds his huge ego, is very worrying. From his saying "It didn't rain, the sun came out" to the press briefing trying to prove the crowds were bigger than those at Obama's inauguration .. all lack any dignity, all make him look like a petulant toddler. And yes .. he wants to control and suppress the press like any tyrant.

I fear you are not. I knew virtually nothing of the man really before Meat was on CA. Trump showed me then a lot of who he is, particularly towards women and his business ethics. Similarly his petulant angry behaviour in Scotland when he didn't get everything his way. (His letters to Alec Salmon were utterly bizarre as business communications in their anger and threats, to the point of one doubting his mental balance, really. Nothing of negotiating just disturbing and crude attempts to bully his adversary into submission) Everything during his campaign has reinforced my assessment of his ethics, behaviour, instability; in his speeches, his response to any criticism or protest, and his fingers flapping like a duck's ass on Twitter. One might have hoped the last might stop after his inauguration .. but no. Adje said they seemed unable to control him, and he's right. I do not think him capable of change; his overweening arrogance and ego preclude it.

The protests on inauguration day included a group who attacked property etc But you can see clearly in one clip a placard representing a group of anarchists. They were not anti-Trump .. just anti-everything. They like to cause trouble, indiscriminately. One other group filmed smashing windows were Atifa .. a worldwide anti-fascist group, not democrats, "leftie liberals" or snowflakes ;) The protests today have been huge, peaceful, and powerful. I have the utmost respect for every woman, man and child around the world who marched today, peacefully and democratically. They know that Trump’s voters felt boasting about sexual assault didn’t disqualify him from the White House. And they reserved the right to deplore the world in which this can be true.

It is not an excess of political correctness to be appalled to see a sexual predator in the White House; not for any woman, nor for any who have wives, sisters, daughters, grand daughters. It is not unreasonable to be concerned at the almost immediate removal of the sections on LGBT rights, disabled rights, human rights, from the White House website. It is worthy to march in peaceful protest, whether one is an American or not; it's solidarity, it's caring for people's rights and the respect of women. People across the USA and around the world from London to Antarctica showed today in their hundreds of thousands that they care for people, for the disabled, for those who are gay or transgender, and that they believe women have a right to dignity and respect. Few who marched today will have held out real hope that they will bring Donald Trump down. They simply would not stay silent, nor should they have, nor should any of us. I salute all those who marched and who made their voices heard, for women, and for all those who fear erosion of years of social progress fought for and won. They are heroes in my book. :-)

https://www.facebook.com/TheRawStory...85059882646484

Yes, there has been quite a bit of leg-cocking I think, perhaps more to come .. I guess he sees himself as a powerful alpha male (I actually shuddered as I typed that) so it's not surprising .. but I agree, extremely distasteful

It always makes me laugh that Brits think Obama as this fantastic US President. If he was that successful do you really think America would have voted for Trump?

From a UK perspective Obama had the audacity to say the UK would be at the "back of the queue" if we voted for Brexit. A terrible, patronising thing to say. This coupled with him removing the Churchill bust showed that he had little respect for the UK.

That's a giant assumption.

Everybody loves to judge the shit out of Obama, or love him up to death. I think he did some good, and some bad. But his intention was ALWAYS to do good and to help everyone. I think we can agree that this is in sharp contrast to his successor.

I've clearly explained about the bust in vain. OUR GOVERNMENT removed it. Obama had the second one brought across and put just outside the Oval Office where he passed it every day. Obama wanted the UK to stay IN the EU, hence his saying what he did ... and if you think the isolationist (who has had the audacity to say he would not hesitate to drop bombs on Europe, does not consider Russia a threat, and has already demanded Brussels abandons plans for an EU Army if it wants the US is to continue its support for Nato) is likely to be rushing to trade deals without services delivered by the public sector to come under deal .... Even the guy tipped to be Trump’s ambassador to the EU has warned Downing Street to "read The Art of the Deal if they wanted to understand how Donald Trump’s mind works. It’s very different to a political mind."

Many suspect Trump’s interest in a deal is fueled mainly by a desire to anger his political enemies in Europe. It's far from clear not clear what Britain would get out of it, given US barriers are usually at state not country level. There is also the worry that the US will insist on opening up private sector access to public services, in particular the NHS, considered by all parties as the country’s most precious asset, and getting access for their private service providers to our public services .. and this Tory government with their ever increasing privatising agenda and May's desperation because there's no way she's going to get free market on her terms, could just get chewed up and spat out in negotiations with the Trump headed administration.

Agreed on all counts. He inherited a country in financial crisis and has steered it into emerging recovery, despite being constantly thwarted at every turn by a Republican congress who made it clear they would block him at every turn. He had a window of about 4 months when he had enough majority to push anything through. Hence the Executive Orders .. without which he could have done nothing and think of every budget that they held to a cliff-hanger! They fought him but he achieved:
* a universal health care programme which wasn't perfect by any means, but covered 32m people
* the act to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.
* passed Wall Street reforms
* turned the auto industry round
* repealed "Don't ask, don't tell
* reversed Bush's torture policies
* boosted fuel efficiency standards and finalised rules to limit carbon emissions from power plants
* tightened sanctions on Iraq and negotiated the deal to block a nuclear Iran
* undertook a stealth climate policy which if Trump doesn't undo it would mean many of the dirtiest power stations would close (sadly I expect this to be culled) and pushed Federal agencies to be green leaders. He secured U.S. commitment to a Global Agreement on Climate Change (another one for the culling :( )
* expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection
* cracked down on bad for-profit colleges and improved school nutrition
* expanded health care for children
* steered though recognition of same-sex marriage
* Protected LGBTQ against employment discrimination and strengthened women's rights to fair pay

These are ones I can remember .. there are many more. But I know he reduced the federal deficit from close to 10% down to just over 3% .. not quite the country gasping in its last death throes painted by Trump's inauguration speech.

AND .. he avoided any personal scandal; the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to serve two terms with no serious personal or political scandal.

I didn't like the drone bombing in Syria, but I think he chose that as the lesser of the evils he felt compelled to choose. On the other hand he forced an agreement by Assad to destroy the country’s stockpile of chemical weapons, ended combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ordered the raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden.

He is intelligent, probing, thoughtful, measured and articulate, gracious, good humoured, and stayed all these things despite a persistent level of racism towards him and his family. Both he and his wife had to put up with the kind of racist comments and slurs that appalled me, and most decent people; the kind of things I haven't heard for decades.

Above and beyond all this he had, as you say, a very real desire to do good, to help those who needed help, to afford those who were not comfortably privileged their rights to pursue happiness. He only wanted to do good, he cared about the people he was elected to serve, and I agree this is in contrast to his successor.

This legacy is under threat. Trump and the now Republican-dominated Congress have pledged to undo much of what he achieved, including repealing the Affordable Care Act and reversing important achievements on immigration and climate change. These were undertaken by executive orders and Trump has stated he will cancel every Obama executive order immediately he takes office, and indeed showily signed away the ACA within an hour or so. Meanwhile he has surrounded himself with the new swamp of climate change deniers, those with vested interests in fossil fuel, businessmen who are more interested in profit than workers' rights.

As to Of course the point is that millions of them didn't. The Electoral College ties in with the popular vote far less than our constituency system, and had for eg the Presidency been decided by a vote as in our referendum, he wouldn't have been elected. They are stuck with the EC, and I'm not going to argue he "lost" on the popular vote .. but 3m more people didn't vote for him, and it wasn't a run between Obama and Trump.

However, I think the above answers why this "Brit" admires Obama, and yes, thinks he was one of the best Presidents the US has had for many years, fears the new incumbent, and is extremely sad to see the one go and very concerned to see the other ensconced. :(

As to the

Some great points as always Caryl, but we must be mindful of the silent majority.

You list Obama's key achievements but has the average American see an improvement in their quality of life? The silent majority in effect elected Trump, Brexit and the Tory Government.

The silent majority is probably looking at this thread and shaking their head at many of the posts.

I thought the majority supporting Trump were rather vociferous. I'm not going to try and second guess what you call the "silent majority", nor if there's one here shaking its head. No-one has been attacked or abused; if headshakers don't speak I cannot respond or discuss.

Many of us here and in the US haven't seen significant improvements in our standard of living over the past decade. Obama inherited a staggering financial crisis. He halted it and started to turn the country around. This cannot be achieved overnight, nor in a few years. It is a slow process. Those who don't look beyond their own paypackets may well not see what he has achieved, but that doesn't minimise what he did, and they would have been far worse off had he not done so. Growth rate is just under 3%, ahead of ours.

One thing Trump did immediately on taking office was to put mortgage premium cuts on hold. It would have cut annual mortgage insurance premium by one quarter of a percent, or 25 basis points, on most new mortgages. That reduction could save FHA-insured homeowners an average $500 in 2017. The cut would have benefited homebuyers who close on their mortgages on or after Jan. 27, and also borrowers who refinanced their mortgages with FHA loans. The FHA last cut insurance premiums by 50 basis points two years ago after HUD routinely raised them in the years after the financial crisis. This would have restored premiums to their pre-crisis levels.

Trump has coyly avoided offering much concrete in terms of strategy; just it's going to be wonderful, successful and big. We'll see.

nah not you