UKC

Here we go then. Welcome to the Brave New World.

Let me tell ya, it's gonna be great, it's gonna be so great that it's gonna be great. We're gonna make America great again, so great. And I know ya gonna be proud, so proud.

Great!

In reply to Hugh J:

Big Off

In reply to FesteringSore:


I can think of alternative words to "Big"!

In reply to Hugh J:

When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, "Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.” - Mr Rogers

Be a helper.

In reply to Hugh J:

There's never a grassy knoll around when you need one, is there?

T.

In reply to Hugh J:

No worries, he's just confirmed that he's got God on his side..........

In reply to Hugh J:
Not just great, it's going to be unbelievably great.

In reply to Trangia:


Great!

In reply to Hugh J:

Watching stuff like this, I can't help but feel the USA seems one of the most culturally alien places I can imagine. Trump is almost the least weird part of this show.

In reply to Hugh J:

Don't worry. We'll all wake up soon......

In reply to Hugh J:

Hmmm, I've heard more praying than speeches*. What happened about church and state being separate?

And a somewhat insular speech at that*

Im not sure what to think.

In reply to David Martin:

There is some hope!

Washington Metro Ridership:
As of 11am, 193k trips taken so far today.
11am 1/20/13 = 317k
11am 1/20/09 = 513k
11am 1/20/05 = 197k

Even Dubya's 2nd term had more interest!

OMG!!! Right now I can here the next door neighbour humming The Stars and Stripes. Don't know whether to go and puke or go and punch them in the mouth!

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

With the crazy armoured glass around the podium you'd need more than a sniper on the grassy knoll.

I was just wondering if someone could have changed the aim of those howitzers and thrown in a few live shells.

One thing that has struck me about the ceremony is the terrible quality of the choirs and singers.

In reply to Hugh J:


Do what all the intolerant liberal snowflakes do and use violence against people who don't share your opinion.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

>



Very insular. The speech rang of empty promises and meaningless platitudes. Who knows where this is going to go but I'm betting it's not going to end well.

In reply to Hugh J:
Here's the new theme song

youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs&

or this?

youtube.com/watch?v=yrbv40ENU_o&

take your pick

In reply to Gone for good:

I was listening to May's speech from a few days back and found that vapid. Trump's was far worse.
Despite that, the whole affair seems very subdued.

In reply to Gone for good:


Sorry, I was using the great British understatement there.

In reply to David Martin:

>
I would suggest that this is because we tend to assume that because the origins of the USA were British and because they speak English they must share our culture. It is thus especially jarring to discover that they don't.

In reply to Hugh J:
you mean Heil to the thief.
not only that, if I wasn't her dad I would date her, i mean look at that body, look at that...

In reply to Gone for good:


As per most political utterances!

In reply to jondo:



I think you mean he would literally date her!

In reply to Duncan Bourne:



Brilliant, definitely this one. LMAO

May I offer some DKs? Not as funny, though perhaps more apt?

youtube.com/watch?v=btPuTlCYiSo&

In reply to Hugh J:

Look you, no carping. We'd all best get behind him and work together to make him a success!

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm really looking forward to hearing your views, once that occurs!

In reply to wercat:

Nice one!

In reply to John Stainforth:

On Trump? He suffers from narcissist personality disorder and possibly ADHD which makes him very dangerous. Like Jeremy Corbyn he asks a lot of the right questions but comes up with the wrong answers.

But if it is all just a weird dream who should be President?

In reply to Hugh J:

Look on the bright side, he hasn't launched a nuke yet!

In reply to FactorXXX:


https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-deletes-climate-change-from-website-b...

Why go out with a bang, when you can go out with a spluttering choke instead.

In reply to Hugh J:

Here we go again, let's all pre-judge before we have a clue how it will pan out.
A bit like the UK, where Corbyn was hailed as the second Messiah and about to save the country, from something. All gone quiet there.

The thought of Trump as president was worrying, but now he's there I'm going to wait and see, he is president of the USA not the UK. I shall consider judgement in a years time, presuming I'm still alive.

In reply to David Martin:


First they elected a chimp's co-star, then they elected a chimp, now they've elected someone who makes the chimp look more evolved.

The USA the world's greatest democracy? F8ck*ng laughable.

Oh say can you see.....

In reply to SenzuBean:



It might be worth wondering whether it is usual practice to leave the previous Presidents webpages up?

I suspect this is and the similar stories about LGBT pages are just feeble attempts at shite stirring.

In reply to Moley:




And with all that freedom, sorry I mean all those guns they have, presuming he is still alive also?

In reply to timjones:



No, it's confirmation that the flip-floppety remarks have indeed settled on "It's a Chinese hoax" side of things. His recent remarks after winning the candidacy have backed down heavily from his remarks during his campaign - so it was uncertain exactly what the outcome would be. This is not shite stirring - but a first taste of the concrete actions that are coming.

In reply to Moley: umm well not very similar at all given that Corbyn hasn't been voted p.m. , or whatever the equivalent is. Trump can get a lot done, and as you would have noticed , 'America first '

That was a very negative , depressing speech.

In reply to timjones:


No. However the sensible approach would stick up permanent redirect pages which means the search engines would seamlessly point to the right place. You would only need those up for a couple of days.

In reply to Wainers44:

The west preaches democracy, we have preached democracy to the rest of the world over all else.
We have to live with due process. Any thoughts of overthrowing our democratic process are against all we have strived for, protest is our right but violence or thoughts of change outside the ballot box are not.

Good times or bad times, our choices were in the ballot box, accept the result and hope for the best.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I wonder if it might not be dementia, the beginnings of Alzheimers perhaps. In which case if it makes him dangerous now...

In reply to Postmanpat:


It will be interesting/worrying to see what happens.
On the one hand I am not sure he hold the positions he used to get the support he did.
On the other hand the question will be what happens if he backs down on them and the supporters feel betrayed. Plus he does come across as a rather thin skinned individual who overreacts to what he thinks is an insult. Which really isnt what you want in the president of the USA (or any position of power).

In reply to deepsoup:

At least he won't be able to remember 'those' codes.....

In reply to Hugh J:

Anyone wanting to understand teh reasons behind Trump's election should read "Deer Hunting With Jesus", for a sobering explanation.







https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/sep/06/5

In reply to Hugh J:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a Trump.

Actually with a bang

In reply to KevinD:

Is there a "right place" to redirect to in the eyes of those who are checking on such things in the hope of finding any means to push their own agenda?

In reply to deepsoup:


Funnily enough I went to bed last night contemplating exactly that.....

In reply to Hugh J:

At least he's going to reopen obsolete factories, creating obsolete jobs for an obsolete workforce.

In reply to Bimble:


I think what he's actually going to do is open a lot of warehouses full of robots

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Japanese robots....

In reply to deepsoup:


It didn't hold Ronnie Raygun back at all.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


I think he'll open a lot of whorehouses full of robots.

In reply to Hugh J:

The "intelligence community" were cheering him today. Let's hope they were just lulling him into a false sense of security. He needs to be impeached very soon if Sadam Hussain's prophecy isn't to come true : "When you enter Baghdad you will be entering the gates of hell" The success of the 9/11 attack has surely been beyond the perpetrators 'wildest dreams, though it has taken 15 years to come to fruition.

In reply to Hugh J:

Anyone else remember this?

youtube.com/watch?v=s2n87YKSjrA&

how apt for these days...

In reply to Hugh J:

I see Trump is declaring war on the press over how many people turned up to see him take the oath. (despite clear photo and video evidence.

He's also now claiming the "media" (some of the worst people on earth by the way) made up his fued with the cia and in fact the exact opposite is true and he "has their backs"

And people voted for him because he was "straight talking"

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Last line make this an offensive post. I would just add the commander in chief and most of his cohorts got it between the eyes...but I won't drone on too much....LOL

In reply to Hugh J:




I love him...

In reply to Moley:



On the face of it your statement seems to be inherently true, but actually it raises the question of where the legitimacy of democracy comes from and whether opposing a democratically elected government through violence is automatically anti-democratic?

Whether you come from a basis of republicanism or from the basis of the theory of a social contract, is it not widely accepted that a government must govern on behalf of all the people, not just that section of the population that voted for it? There is an argument that it is the duty of each individual to ensure the government does not overstep the bounds of its authority and take away rights which the population have not agreed to let the government have - we all consent to give up certain rights in order that the government can defend our remaining rights, this is the basis of society. In the case of the U.S.A. many people consider that there are basic human rights that the government does not have the authority to take away, for example because they come from a higher power, i.e. God. Should a (democratically elected) government try to take those rights away they may believe it would be perfectly legitimate to take up arms against it.

There is a de facto responsibility owed by a government to defend the rights of minorities and attempt to accommodate their wishes where those may be at odds with the wishes of the majority. If a minority group has no hope of ever gaining a majority then if their wishes were to be ignored their votes would be meaningless, with no democratic means of achieving their aspirations the only option open is violence. There is therefore an implicit contract to enable society to function for the good of all, minorities will not resort to violence and in return will get some of the things they want.

Curiously in the case of the U.S.A. the President was not elected by a majority, but thus far he has given the impression that he is leading a government that will only take into account the wishes of those who voted for him and is being deliberately antagonistic towards those who didn't.

In reply to Hugh J:
Don't know if anyone has watched this yet?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/trump-white-house-briefing-i...

Really quite astounding, the anger and thin-skin being displayed, amid the claims of love for the glorious leader. Hardly feels like statesmanship, attacking the media for being unfriendly.

In reply to Hugh J:

As I've written on the other Trump thread, I suspect that we are all in for a few surprises. Trump astonished everybody by achieving the seemingly impossible at very little cost and he has already dissuaded Ford from building a car plant in Mexico. I don't like the guy either but I've a sneaking suspicion we are all going to be singing a different song in a year's time.

In reply to Rigid Raider:
I'm prepared to put good money on the fact that any surprises are going to be unpleasant ones.

Though I suspect (hope) that he has gone within 100 days - either impeachment or retired on 'health grounds'.

In reply to Trangia:


Some might say that the very fact he got elected ( despite the prayers of many millions of people religious and otherwise) that it is proof that there is no God.

However, it was a choice for the Americans between Trump and Clinton, not one I would have liked to have had to choose though.

Anyway for me it's time for those who do not like the result of the US election , to accept it , and to to stop the wailing 'woe me , poor me' I'm governed by Trump act ,( and its not helped by some committing crimes either)

In reply to timjones:


Yes to the archive site created for the purpose. This really isnt rocket science but basic site maintenance. So his team are either incompetent or do have an agenda.

In reply to Jim C:


Why? When you look at the opposition to Obama in the previous 8 years and how the republicans tried to stop everything he did it would make perfect sense for them to do the same back.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Signing a paper that would make repealing the 'Obama care' act, is probably a very good negotiating strategy, those who did the original deal and making money out of it will not want to see it ripped up, better to re- negotiate and take a hit on the deal than lose it altogether.
And if they want to rename it after Trump re negotiates , why not

Brinkmanship worked as you say with Ford in Mexico., Trump will look at all deals done in the last administrations, assume there is fat in there ( if not corrupt payments) and renegotiate them all ( with menaces)

In reply to Jim C:


I hope you remember those sage words when Corbyn becomes Prime Minister...

In reply to elsewhere:


One up on Regan who it did no harm
youtube.com/watch?v=FjkX_IBYQHw&

In reply to Jim C:


Apart from Ford disagree about the reasons.

If your claims are right though doesnt bode well for Mays trade deal negotiations does it?

In reply to EddInaBox:

Good point
( but it can't happen can it ?)

Where is my bookies slip.

In reply to KevinD:


The whole world knows where it stands with Trump. If it is in Americas interest to do a deal it will do one, if not they will walk away.

Exactly what May's tactics are with the EU. ( and quite right to)

In reply to Jim 1003:


Huh?

In reply to Jim C:

When has it ever been different?
Trump is a liar. He uses lies to wrong foot opponents who have normal scruples about the truth. In the hiatus he creates by the pause for thought that secures he steals advantage. He has no other way of conducting himself as he sees every encounter as an opportunity to big up his own persona, a fight.
Everyone must understand what they are dealing with. Trump must lose, and big league, if the West is to get back to safety.

In reply to Hugh J:

It didn't take long for the self delusion and lying to rear it's head. I can only shake my head and wonder what's next?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38707722

In reply to KevinD:


So the current incumbent can't use any nice simple names for their webpages if a previous incumbent has already used them?

That seems pretty poorl

In reply to Jim C:


The problem is that there is little understanding of what is in America's interest any any more. How is challenging the One China policy in the US interest?

In reply to timjones:


I agree it would be poor if true. Its not though. So either they showed your level of IT skills, eg a level which would be deemed incompetent for a professional, or had an agenda.

In reply to KevinD:



According to the reports the page that went missing was whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change.

As a "professional" can you explain how the hell you could design a website that would know whether I wanted to know about old policies or new ones when I typed that address into my browser?

In reply to timjones:


That returns a 404 so I am not sure why you are babbling about new vs old policies pages.

In reply to KevinD:

Because that is the page that people are complaining about.

Surely even the saddest geek must realise that it would be absurd to have a page on a government website with that address that referred to old policies?

In reply to timjones:


I am interested in why you used that page and then went on to ask about how the browser should know which page to point to. Considering there isnt a replacement.


If only there was a way that you could redirect from one site to another. It would be even better if you could mark it as permanently redirected so you dont even need to keep that page up for that long, eg if you come up with your own policy pages.
Its almost like the geeks have actually thought the thing through.

In reply to KevinD:



People are making a big deal of the disappearance of that webpage, I suggested that it was probably quite normal for the new administration to remove the old website and replace it with their own and you appeared to state that they should have archived the old pages and used a redirect.

Maybe I should ask you to clarify which addresses you are saying the redirects should originate from and what content they should be linked to?

In reply to timjones:


For a professional job you would do a full 301 to the archive website with each page directly linked.
For a semi professional job you would put up an adequate 404 page with a message pointing to the archive website.
For a completely amateurish or agenda driven one you wouldnt even have a custom 404 page.

Guess which one of the three was the one which got the complaints and which of the three is now happening?

In reply to KevinD:





Forget the geeky side of it. I get the idea of redirects, we have 2 in operation on websites that we manage right now.

Can you explain why the new administration should have any responsibility to archive someone elses website or design their website around the policy structures of the old administration?

In reply to Hugh J:

Reading a Matthew Paris column in the Times (yesterday), he says:
"......And he will either crash and burn, or the Washington political establishment will move to contain him and limit the damage. There is plenty of wisdom in America and a deep respect for due process.
So we should relax a little. The chorus of horror from the British and European intelligentsia is getting boring."

Hopefully Mr Paris is correct, he often talks sense and I'm beginning to feel as he does - bored by all the speculation.

In reply to Moley:

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

However, the problem may be more one of presentation. The distance between Obama (who most of Europe would be happily led by) and Trump, in terms of maturity, style and dignity could hardly be larger. In terms of pure statesmanship, soft-power, cultural-power and as the premier representative of all that your country stands for, Trump will do a lot of harm. Even the level of uncertainty, that a country led by one ethos can switch to such a polar opposite, could have an impact. Who knows.

I don't doubt that his more insane urges will be kept in check. But a supreme court appointment is now there for the taking, a centrist appointee having been blocked by the Republicans, with a hard-right conservative candidate waiting in the wings. That will impact the political balance in the US potentially for decades. Environmental and health laws will likely be knocked for six. It certainly means the US taking a back seat for at least the term of his government. But there may be positives in that. Interesting times.

In reply to Moley:

'Hopefully Mr Paris is correct, he often talks sense and I'm beginning to feel as he does - bored by all the speculation.'

But we don't need to speculate any more do we, at the first press conference his press representative clearly and knowingly lied to the world about evidence that the entire world could see for itself. If they're like that on day 1 on a relatively trivial matter, what are they going to be like on more important matters?

This is an unprecedented state of affairs, but cannot be good.

In reply to wbo:


There would certainly be a few twitchy bums sitting very close to him , for example those who have prospered under the previous administration will for sure be depressed, as they are probably going to be losers.

On the other hand, there are some who will believe that they will be better off ( not a big deal, as there are many who cannot be worse off)

Watching it, I am like Moley, I thought let's wait and see.
( We have all listened to the crap our own politicians spout in campaigns, and surprisingly some people actually believe it and are disappointed, others, ignore it, and just watch for what actually happens.)

In reply to timjones:


So why were you so confused then?


Why should it be archived? Because it is the law. Why do you keep demonstrating your absolute lack of knowledge?

In reply to KevinD:


Or, not do the same back, and rise above it.

Certainly, protest if they want, as long as it without criminal acts.
(But save me from their histrionics of some of them flailing on the ground, wailing like a banshee. )

In reply to timjones:


It has been hidden away beside Global Warming perhaps .

In reply to KevinD:


What on earth makes you think that I was confused?

I was amazed that people could make such a big issue about it, maybe you are the confused one


Assuming that you are correct, where does the responsibility lie?

In reply to Jim C:


I'd say that it has been removed as it doesn't reflect the policies of the current administration.

Is that a problem?

The level of fuss about it seems somewhat bizarre, wouldn't it be bitter to focus on the policies themselves rather than resorting to silly speculation about inevitable changes to a website?

In reply to Hugh J:
Jonathan Pie's latest:
youtube.com/watch?v=0RMwjaZouNY&

In reply to timjones:


Because you started babbling rubbish about the same url being reused even when, in the example you used, it wasnt.



f*ck it. You win. You are either too lazy to do some basic research or actively dishonest. Either way you are a waste of conversation time.

In reply to Moley:

Apppropriate username

In reply to deepsoup:


Look, I don't wanna just hurl insults at him!

Thanks for that.

In reply to deepsoup:


And yet, he has not always looked the worse of the two bad choices.
youtube.com/watch?v=Rf2OfoOKzKM&

In reply to KevinD:

In the example that i quoted there are plenty of people claiming some sort of conspiracy on social media because the url doesn't exist any more. If you can be bothered to read what I've written you might just notice that I'm trying to point out the absurdity of their claims.



Oh come on!

It was a simple and civil question.

Surely the responsibility for archiving webpages lies with the person or organisation who published them rather than their successors?

In reply to Rigid Raider:



How many people knew just before he tweeted about Ford. A big killing on the market and was made by someone that morning...

In reply to Hugh J:

Apparently it stopped raining at the inauguration when Trump started speaking (it didn't). Very North Korean; very Great Leader. And people will know he's beefed up the military "because they'll see it". Helmeted and armed personnel on every street corner as serried ranks of meticulously drilled troops march through Washington?
This dystopian nightmare needs to be nipped in the bud before it gains real momentum.

In reply to Jim C:


I'll bite. What do you think the evolution of the terminology used to describe what's happening to our planet implies? Are you with Trump on this, it's a hoax, or perhaps a natural phenomenon or am I misunderstanding the implication of your post?
jk

In reply to timjones:

Are you saying George Washington (d 1799) is still responsible for archiving the originals of the US constitution?

In reply to elsewhere:


I'd say that there is a huge difference between the US constitution and webpages about the defunct policies of an ex-President.

What are the rules about archiving old webpages?

The "expert" who raised the point is unwilling to answer simple questions.

In reply to timjones:


Actually you made wild claims about agendas without any evidence.


After wasting time pointing out the ease of permanent redirects only for you to declare your knowledge of them I dont really see why I should bother wasting anymore time on the subject.
After all if you are going to criticise people for having an agenda surely having basic knowledge would make sense.
It wouldnt take two minutes to turn up the presidental records act.

In reply to KevinD:


In what way do you think trhat complaining because a new president doesn't maintain the old presidents website isn't highly suggestive of an agenda?


FFS, why would trump want or be required to redirect to Obamas old website?


In light of your next sentence it appears that basic common sense was bang on the money!


Bingo, now that we know which legislation you are talking about we can have a look at it!

It appears that the act places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent presidential records with the president.

That suggests that Trump is not responsible for archiving Obamas records?

Which is exactly what I have been saying!

In reply to timjones:


No it isnt. You went off on a rant about agendas whilst clearly not being arsed to bother spending five minutes looking things up yourself to understand the context and the various different positions on it.
Its almost as if you have an agenda.

In reply to KevinD:

FFS you still haven't managed to provide any evidence that the new incumbent had any legal obligation to archive anything or to redirect any URLs.

In reply to timjones:


You really do have a sense of entitlement dont you?
To deal with your claims.
First of all the evidence for the archiving is in place.
Secondly since I didnt claim there was legal obligation to redirect why the f*ck should I provide evidence. I could of course, point out, that the whitehouse site now does have a a semi sensible option.
You appear incapable of reading without putting a spin on it and then demanding others provide proof for things they havent said.

byyyyeeeeee

In reply to KevinD:






I've just read through the thread again and you were definitely the one that raised the issue of redirects and archives.

My stance still remains that people are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over a simple and inevitable website rewrite.

Did I inadvertantly piss in your chips in a past life?