[Closed] Donald! Trump!

(quite rightly

saying racist, sexist etc shit should be called out, he has very little right to complain

TV is still the mass media of choice, only 7% of americans have a twitter account

gobuchul that youtube video is bobbins

There is 25 minutes difference between the shots used (trump vs obama) not 2 hours as he claims!

he is also comparing an eye level view with an aerial level view
Hes just the kind of internet idiot that thinks hes discovered that big pharama are surpressing the cure for cancer or the moon landings were fake etc

To be fair the only proof on numbers we have are photos, time lapse video, videos, eye witnesses and statistics from the metro on passenger numbers. How can we draw any reasonable conclusions from that tiny amount of data?

Love that video gobuchul:

"...this is what the mainstream media is showing Trump's inauguration drew. This amount of people at the height of his inaugurational speech. That's how many people they are saying were there."

[i]*shows Vox page with an image that states very clearly, in three different places, that the photo was taken at 11:04am i.e. NOT at the height of the speech*[/i]

[img] [/img]

🙄

To be fair the only proof on numbers we have are photos, time lapse video, videos, eye witnesses and statistics from the metro on passenger numbers. How can we draw any reasonable conclusions from that tiny amount of data?

This.

Plus it was raining for Trump, plus crowd numbers are notoriously hard to estimate.

I suspect Trump is a lot less popular than Obama because we can compare voting figures, but even that's not a perfect comparison. It's certainly better than crowd photographs, though!

An utterly pointless debate.

outofbreath - Member

"To be fair the only proof on numbers we have are photos, time lapse video, videos, eye witnesses and statistics from the metro on passenger numbers. How can we draw any reasonable conclusions from that tiny amount of data? "

This.

Plus it was raining for Trump, plus crowd numbers are notoriously hard to estimate

Whoosh!!!

An utterly pointless debate.

Not pointless at all.

As was said earlier, it is an illustration of the way that the new administration has decided to try and threaten, cowe and then control the currently free press in the USA.

This is the classic first step in the progress to dictatorship.

The political function of a free press is to speak truth to power in a democratic society.

The attempt to erode and destroy this is the subject of this argument, not the fiddling details of the report iin question.

Trump and his cronies seem to want a sort of subservient "Pravda-esque" fourth estate to help further their own slimy ambitions. They have already said that the thing most important to them is "loyalty".

Hail the Great Leader, then eh?

An utterly pointless debate.

And yet there are Trump and his allies making it.

So should the press just roll over and let this one slide because Trump and Spicer only told small lies (or "alternative facts")?

How long till Trump beats Kim Jong-Il's famous golf score 😆

And yet there are Trump and his allies making it.

So should the press just roll over and let this one slide

Yeah, the press should shut up about this because there simply isn't the data and because the images they're using as evidence are utterly unrepresentative.

If the press want a 'Trump is unpopular' story they can just use the voting numbers which are far better evidence.

Yes, Trump should shut up about it as well, but I don't think anyone is saying he shouldn't.

Yeah, the press should shut up about this because there simply isn't the data and because the images they're using as evidence are utterly unrepresentative.

why is that?

As was said earlier, it is an illustration of the way that the new administration has decided to try and threaten, cowe and then control the currently free press in the USA.

No it isn't.

oob did you see the spicer press conference?

Was my post overly subtle or is outofbreath maybe having a bad day?

Was my post overly subtle or is outofbreath maybe having a bad day?

I think your point was spot on.

I very much doubt that in the 45 minutes left before the beginning of his "speech", the necessary 1.25 million (by his estimate) people needed to swell the crowd would have collectively said "Ooh, the Donald is about to speak. Quick, lets hack it to the Capitol before he starts"...

Put together with the quite reputable figures from the transport system and the hotel bookings for head count in comparison with the Obama event, I don't think he's got a leg to stand on.

Even though he's trying to stand the story on it's head.

By the way, anybody who isn't even slightly concerned at the evident project to get complete control of the information narrative for Trump's own ends in America, is a fool.

Ah so youre agreeing that multiple sources are a reliable way to prove a fact, excellent. I forgot the parking figures which showed many car parks only half full.

I very much doubt that in the 45 minutes left before the beginning of his "speech", the necessary 1.25 million (by his estimate) people needed to swell the crowd would have collectively said "Ooh, the Donald is about to speak. Quick, lets hack it to the Capitol before he starts"...

I very much doubt that Corbyn did a jig on the way to the Cenotaph and yet the press had images that showed that. The media select images that support their story and anyone with a Camera knows how easy it is to take completely unrepresentative shots.

Put together with the quite reputable figures from the transport system and the hotel bookings for head count in comparison with the Obama event, I don't think he's got a leg to stand on.

Are those numbers under dispute?

I forgot the parking figures which showed many car parks only half full.

Are those numbers under dispute?

An image of Corbyn's person from a verifiable instant in time adopting a particular shape, is exactly the same as an image of the Capitol grounds taken at a verifiable moment in time showing a particular amount of people on it.

The first was a misinterpretation of what he was doing. The second was a simple record of numbers attending at that time.

You'll have to do better than that.

So you're agreeing that the turnout was poor and the press reported on that, I'm having problems figuring out what the point you're trying to make is.

Mr Woppit - Member
By the way, anybody who isn't even slightly concerned at the evident project to get complete control of the information narrative for Trump's own ends in America, is a fool.

So how is the Donald gonna handle May this week as the American press have got hold of the story that we accidently fired a nuke in their direction? 😳

Yeah 'accidentally' 😉

as long as they still sell us the trident replacement, bet that just put the price up too...

So you're agreeing that the turnout was poor and the press reported on that, I'm having problems figuring out what the point you're trying to make is.

I don't know if the turnout was poor or not. Obviously it would be something of a surprise if a deeply unpopular President got more people at his inauguration in the rain than a popular President like Obama (who also happened to be a 'first') got in the dry. So if you're asking me to guess I'd say Obamas would have been overwhelmingly better attended.

But the photos tell us nothing. There are other photos from the same day that make the place look heaving and crowd estimation is a notoriously difficult task.

Again, a far better set of data is the election results which are about as conclusive a measure of popularity as you can have and Trump got less votes than most Republicans who've lost in recent years and far fewer than Obama's first term.

Here's an nice shot of the crowd I just found in the 12 hour LIVE Stream of the inauguration (video timestamp is 2:48:10):

[img] [/img]

If you watch the video you'll see that most of the dignitaries, former and would-be presidents have already arrived at the point. Michelle Obama is announced onto the stage about six minutes after that shot (timestamp 2:54:56) and Melania Trump a few minutes later (timestamp 2:59:25).

Is this image "utterly unrepresentative" too oob? 🙄

Here's the full 12-hour livecast - feel free to find a more representative one that shows the same area.

Lets hope Trump isnt following the live HOC debate on trident failures, hes just been described as “thick as two short planks” by Skinner 🙂

Oh good old Beast 😀

so the ameicans were fully briefed on all this and know our missiles are duds, good job no one over there is in-hoc to putin 😉

That's an interesting still from the live video from Graham S.

It's clear that the same areas in white more or less match the white areas in the newspaper aerial photo, but seem narrower because of the angle of sight.

Trump's eye view is even lower than this, on the dais and he may not be aware of the gaps from his point of view.

However, his subsequent inability to recognise his faulty conclusion from these circumstances and his banging on about how his version is the correct one, says more about him than it does about the newspaper report...

Trump didnt do well in Washingtom state which is a reasonable answer to the turn out question.
That hey choose to answer the question with a binch of lies is just more evidence ( as if it's needed) that he's a cock.

... plus of course, this inability to interpret his own point of view in the light of objective facts (rather than alternative ones) and his reaction thereby, does not bode well for future foreign policy decisions...

donald has withdrawn the US from TPP, seems like he doesn't like trade deals unless they are weighted in the septics favour.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Being pleased that Trump is in power because he is a buffoon and cuz "Iraq and Hillary lololololol" just evidences crass thinking.

Thank you for your valued opinion. You can image how much it means to me.

doesn't like trade deals unless they are weighted in the septics favour.

Why would anyone sign a trade deal weighted against them?

If you want further evidence try zooming into the rear of the crowd on that [url= http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/ ]CNN Gigapixel image[/url].

Even from that lower angle you can see large gaps in the same areas:
[url= https://s23.postimg.org/6euf766bf/trump_inauguration_crowd_cnn_gigapixel.jp g" target="_blank">https://s23.postimg.org/6euf766bf/trump_inauguration_crowd_cnn_gigapixel.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Somehow that doesn't quite tally with Spicer's version of the facts:

"let's go through the facts. We know that from the platform where the President was sworn in, to Fourth Street holds about 250,000 people. From 4th Street to the media tent is about another 220,000. And from the media tent to the Washington Monument, another, another 250,000 people. [b]All of this space was full when the President took the Oath of Office.[/b]
...
This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe.

Why would anyone sign a trade deal weighted against them?

dunno ask mrs maybe in 2yrs time.

kimbers - Member
So how is the Donald gonna handle May this week as the American press have got hold of the story that we accidentally fired a nuke in their direction?

Regarding this fighting the press brouhaha it has done two things
a) distracted attention away from the signing of a law to begin dismantling Obamacare
b) taken press attention away from the demonstrations taking place on Saturday.

I'd say that was rather well done.

Trying to work out his taxation stance.
All imports are going to be tariffed to the hilt to encourage home grown purchases. Now surely that's going to kill Apple.
They are going to be hit with new and huge tariffs, and Apple aren't going to be able to manufacture in the USA as that will put prices up and they buy kit from Samsung anyway.
How many other products can't be manufactured in the good ol' USofA, but are manufactured by USA companies?

All imports are going to be tariffed to the hilt to encourage home grown purchases. Now surely that's going to kill Apple.

It will ether kill Apple or kill the people who just have to pay a higher price for their goods (all goods, not just Apple). See how many want to make America great again when they are worse off as consumers...

I assume it's going to hit all components and materials imported into the US for assembly there into finished products.

Washington State is a very long way from Washington DC

It will ether kill Apple or kill the people who just have to pay a higher price for their goods (all goods, not just Apple). See how many want to make America great again when they are worse off as consumers...

Damn beat me to it Pigface !

He won't kill Apple - but it does sound like his policies will put Apple at a competitive disadvantage unless they can find ways around them (or they get subsidised).

Surely Apple aren't the only technology company selling into the US who manufacture outside the US? It's going to hit everyone isn't it (tariffs either on finished goods or components)?

So either companies will make less money or people will end up paying more for products, so um win win for America.

Simply put he will try to implement his wishes it won't happen he will tell every it has, his yes men will shout at the media for misprinting the facts and that it has.
Sounds like a small time African despot.

*no offence to any real despots who have been doing well since the Europeans cut up the place

Or he'll give them massive subsidies, big tax and changes to regulations to ensure it is viable enough in the short term.

As per [url= https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html ]his NY Times interview[/url] where he said:

I got a call from Tim Cook at Apple, and I said, "Tim, you know one of the things that will be a real achievement for me is when I get Apple to build a big plant in the United States, or many big plants in the United States, where instead of going to China, and going to Vietnam, and going to the places that you go to, you're making your product right here."

He said, "I understand that."

I said: "I think [b]we'll create the incentives for you, and I think you’re going to do it. We're going for a very large tax cut for corporations[/b], which you'll be happy about."

But we’re going for big tax cuts, we have to get rid of regulations, regulations are making it impossible. Whether you're liberal or conservative, I mean I could sit down and show you regulations that anybody would agree are ridiculous. It's gotten to be a free-for-all. And companies can't, they can't even start up, they can’t expand, they’re choking.

I tell you, one thing I would say, so, [b]I'm giving a big tax cut and I'm giving big regulation cuts[/b], and I've seen all of the small business owners over the United States, and all of the big business owners, I've met so many people. They are more excited about the regulation cut than about the tax cut. And I would've never said that's possible, because [b]the tax cut's going to be substantial[/b]. You know we have companies leaving our country because the taxes are too high. But they're leaving also because of the regulations. And I would say, of the two, and I would not have thought this, [b]regulation cuts, substantial regulation cuts[/b], are more important than, and more enthusiastically supported, than even the big tax cuts.

(I'm guessing by regulations he means pesky stuff like Environmental Protection, Emissions, Employee Rights, Safety etc)

Jonathan Pie has something to say on the event!

The only way to deal with the tax avoidance of companies like apple is through international co-operation and agreements, not isolation and trade wars.

The US can't afford to cut its taxes any further, what services are they going to cut, education? law and order? Transport? They are already way down world charts on pretty much all essential services. Of course cutting taxes even further might give a short term boost, until the next guy in the oval office has to deal with the problem of an expending uneducated workforce who can't get to the rare jobs that survive.

ps. How many people have posted that Pie bloke video, FFS!

Spicer's second press conference is being streamed on Facebook Live at the moment - I get the feeling it's not quite convincing people...

[img] [/img]

Someone (in the comments) just called him "the American version of Comical Ali" 😆

He's actually been fairly cordial on this, been watching it for the last 15 minutes or so. interesting enough.

Christ, he just said [i]"I think sometimes we can disagree with the facts"[/i].

He semi-retracted his figures on Metro ride figures for actual attendance, but is sticking with the most watched inauguration line with the proviso that you add up 31 million on TV plus the uncountable live streams, Facebook posts, YouTube, ...

GrahamS - Member
Christ, he just said "I think sometimes we can disagree with the facts".

Honestly there's more interesting stuff. And in context, what he actually said wasn't as controversial as your post sounds.

Interesting first press conference. First one I have ever watched all the way through.

Fascinating to see some of the spin headlines appearing (eg Independent) which differ from the tone of what I am hearing

Trade. Bilaterals are the focus hence cancelling Trans Pacific deal. Looking at NAFTA and has spoken to Canada and Mexico. German jounalist asked about the EU as the "largest trading block" got a bit of a non-answer but the bilateral point goes against focusing on a deal with the EU.

Fascinating to see some of the spin headlines appearing (eg Independent) which differ from the tone of what I am hearing

Watching it too - that type of nonsense pretty much proves his point doesn't it.

I see the President Trump inauguration audience count has been blown away now to be replaced by new headline:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714459 ]iPhone maker Foxconn signals $7bn US investment[/url] 😆

That President Trump bloke must be very persuasive. 😛

jambalaya - Member
I think Trump is (quite rightly) unimpressed with the press coverage he got during the campaign. I do think he's going to sideline many traditional media outlets. If Zuckerberg does that he's part of the modern information and tech revolution. Twittr, Facebook and news websites, why not prioritise those.

I can't wait to see traditional press getting hammered in the digital interweb era. This will truly challenge the way information is consumed especially when President Trump starts to confront the traditional media head on his way.

The media did not do themselves favour by shooting themselves in their own feet when they gang-banged the President Trump during his campaign to be President. Those people feeding the information or researching the information who are they? They should all be fired tbh coz they just discredited their jobs. 😆 Now the media will just have to reap what they sow. The media has a fight on their hands and I bet they will fight to the end because they will soon be cornered. Both sides will hammer each other to the hilt and the winner takes all. Should be fun to see the media hammered because they are so "correct" ... 😆

Yes, those reporters need to work their socks off if they want to retain their jobs. If they try to be partisan etc they will get hit hard which they should. I have a feeling some news corporation will merge soon as the smaller ones will no longer be able to sustain themselves if their rating get hammered.

I also foresee individual reporter making their own news ... 😆

Moe - Member
Jonathan Pie has something to say on the event!

Trade. Bilaterals are the focus hence cancelling Trans Pacific deal. Looking at NAFTA and has spoken to Canada and Mexico. German jounalist asked about the EU as the "largest trading block" got a bit of a non-answer but the bilateral point goes against focusing on a deal with the EU

and the dollar starts to fall as parochialism begins to grip ....

Watching it too - that type of nonsense pretty much proves his point doesn't it.

He certainly tried to be more friendly with the press but the content of his answers was very empty.

Fascinating to see some of the spin headlines appearing (e.g. Independent) which differ from the tone of what I am hearing

Perhaps because you are focusing on your perspective and hearing what you want to?

check out the New York times''s live comment stream and you might find another perspective
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/23/us/politics/spicer-white-house-briefing-live.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

and the dollar starts to fall as parochialism begins to grip ....

That's good for the US as like the UK they are a net importer. Look at US stock market it's been strong since Trump was elected. He will be good for US business. Ne wants to reduce imports and a lower $ helps that.

Kimbers you have got to get away from notion that a lower currency is necessarily bad. It depends.

Spicer, " Sometimes we disagree with the facts"

Enough said.

cchris2lou - Member
He certainly tried to be more friendly with the press but the content of his answers was very empty.

Not really tbh, I describe it as tentative tbh.. It's the first day, substance is likely to be thin. Governments are an evolving and reactionary thing, on that basis, I really do think people need to look at all this at face value(which will take longer than day 1) and then form opinion based on actions. Anything else is really just hysteria tbh.

teamhurtmore - Member
Spicer, " Sometimes we disagree with the facts"

Enough said.

If you're a tabloid headline writer, perhaps.

?

[i][b]“Now is the time to develop a new trade policy that helps working families, not just multinational corporations. If President Trump is serious about a new policy to help American workers then I would be delighted to work with him.”

“For the past 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals … which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom’ which has lowered wages for American workers”[/i][/b]

- Former Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders who quite rightly, and very loudly, denounced Trump as a bully and a demagogue.

[img] [/img]

If Bernie Sanders can now publicly declare that he would be delighted to work with Trump to help ordinary American workers achieve a better quality of life, then some people should perhaps consider reassessing their determination to see Trump impeached in favour of a Mike Pence presidency - a truly horrific scenario imo.

Now Americans will simply have to pay more for lower quality goods. How does that help the low paid??

Protectionism is no panacea

teamhurtmore - Member
?

He ment facts as people believed them, facts in that sense are often ambiguous.

It's lazy sensationalism to just jump on that.

"I really do think people need to look at all this at face value(which will take longer than day 1) and then form opinion based on actions. Anything else is really just hysteria tbh."

I agree. FFS, Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize on day 4. Premature? I think so. You can't judge these things so early.

...and the bar is pretty low for Trump. If he doesn't Nuke China he'll have far exceeded expectations.

It's lazy sensationalism to just jump on that.

Yeah I took it as meaning that not everyone necessarily agrees with what the facts are, a fair comment which I'm sure most people would agree with.

"Now Americans will simply have to pay more for lower quality goods. How does that help the low paid??"

...because they'll be paid to make the goods in the USA.

...if it works.

No wonder politics is in the mess its in Joe!

The post truth world summed up perfectly!

😯

Let's hope the poor believe that as "fact" ????

Sadly history suggests that they will be disappointed

Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize on day 4. Premature? I think so.

Why......because Obama then went on to approve US military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, ****stan, Libya, Somalia and Syria and backed Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen?

Yeah, the Peace Prize was probably a little premature.

I was thinking of the Extra judicial killings on foreign soil, but either way I think Obama's Nobel Prize is a good example of the folly of judging Politicians at the very beginning of their term. That's why I mentioned it.

Bernie Sanders is probably very aware that in all likelihood the people who are going to benefit most from trump's presidency are billionaire white men. I'd love it if trump helped out the poor and the needy but unless he has a complete change of character then it seems unlikely.

Interesting first press conference. First one I have ever watched all the way through.

Fascinating to see some of the spin headlines appearing (eg Independent) which differ from the tone of what I am hearing

Trade. Bilaterals are the focus hence cancelling Trans Pacific deal. Looking at NAFTA and has spoken to Canada and Mexico. German jounalist asked about the EU as the "largest trading block" got a bit of a non-answer but the bilateral point goes against focusing on a deal with the EU.

Jamby, honestly, I ask this as someone who doesn't think that you are wrong all the time - you actually make some decent points sometimes - and I don't particularly like the ridicule aimed at you sometimes.

But and this is a big but, how as a free marketeer and fellow libertarian meritocracist (I've got the distinct impression that you are) - how, just how, can you defend Trumps protectionism? Can you please enlighten me?

If you were truly principled on you anti-EU stance, that it discriminates against people from outside the EU and is protectionist/corrupt, then surely you should be arguing for the rights of the other 6 billion people on this planet to live in a true free market whereby they can compete with us.