Whether there was ½ million or 1.5 million attendees at the inauguration, or a bust of MLK was or was not on a table at the White House (which the reporter quickly noted his error) is pretty small potatoes.  The inauguration was well attended, was it the biggest ever, no, but so what.

What is disconcerting is the reaction.  The President and staff could have easily ended the whole issue, yet decided to make a mountain out of a molehill and the press happily took the lead and continued the controversy.  It then turns into a vicious circle of point/counterpoint that makes both parties look stupid.  If this was an isolated event, I’d chalk it up to some petty disagreements between different personalities.  But, it’s not, this is very similar to the spat with Mr. Khan back during the campaign, another issue that could have been quickly and graciously ended, but the President decided to go on the attack.  The President has made it quite clear he believes (with some justification) that the press are the most dishonest people on earth, they treat him badly and is due greater respect or they will re-think how they deal with the press.  Maybe he is correct that a re-set is in order.  That being said, if the President wants greater respect, there is some measure that both sides need to earn it.

The President will have to live with the press, why needlessly make enemies?

True.  Has Melania said anything hateful about our country?

Not that I'm aware of.

Michelle has.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. 

There's nothing wrong with the press asking questions, that's part of their job. Trump is going to have to get over the fact that most of the media doesn't like him.

Yes, it is part of their job.  Half the country are not fans of the President.

It's one thing to call them out for lying or purposely mis-representing facts. It's an entirely different thing to have an adversarial relationship with them and continue it.

There is no problem if the President's press secretary calls out the media for lying or purposely mis-representing facts.  In the case of the missing bust, the media reporter got it wrong.  But, that is a two way street.  Most, if not all President's have a love/hate relationship with the press.  IMHO opinion, that is a good thing.

My most fervent hope is that Trump can somehow help unite us.  I realize there is a low probability of that because most liberals I know will refuse to admit that they agree with anything Trump says or does.  But I still hope.

We shall see.  The President made the point numerous times that he is there to make life better for all Americans.  If that is borne out, kudos to him.  If it turns out that life improves for a select group of Americans of his choosing, his administration is likely to be rocky and a single term.

It's not the $3.6B that bothers me most.  It is the $70B.  But I think that number needs qualifying.  I believe it only covers food stamps.  There is a lot more grouped under "welfare" than food stamps.

And just maybe the fact that the cost is "only" $3.6B explains why it is run so poorly.  Too many undeserving people collecting.  If we paid more to administer it, we could probably cut the $70B in half without denying any of the truly needy.

This is a valid point!  The tough part is defining just who qualifies, whether it be disability payments, medicare or social security.  We have plenty of laws against fraud, however, enforcement is often weak and it does take people to evaluate and take action if necessary. 

Seems as though the knee-jerk reaction in Washington when program costs rise is to cut the benefits.  While this may reduce the cost, it does hurt the people who are truly entitled to a benefit.  Most high dollar fraud is a concerted effort by a group of people, crooked doctors, lawyers and even judges:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/08/widespread-fraud-reported-in-social-security-administration-disability-program.html

Would make sense that the increased cost of enforcement would easily be paid back in getting the fraudsters caught.

... snip..   President-elect Trump, however, thinks we should just trust him because we all know he is a man of his word...

I was under the understanding that the President-elect spoke figuratively not literally and we should judge him by what's in his heart, not what he says.  Do you have the decoder ring?  That would be most helpful.

With so many on the Left talking about popular vote, I've heard some express the idea that apportioning the EVs according to the popular vote breakdown in each state was a good idea - for example, Hillary won 59% of the vote in New York, so she should get 59% of the 29 votes, rounded to 17 votes.  Trump would get the other 12.  So if that happened, what would the EV count have been?

There is a non-obvious rounding problem due to the small party candidates, sometimes rounding would not apportion all the votes.  And I think it's a silly idea, more denial from Hillary supporters so I haven't really gone forward.

Is this what you are looking for?

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/12/22/2016-alternate-electoral-methods-a-preliminary-look_437.html#.WHetDMv2bcs

The President elect still wins, the margin just gets narrower.