Got to admit, the whole crowd size thing is indicative of modern day politics, why the hell is it even an issue and why are people still talking about it?
If trump is the devil incarnate, the smart thing to do is wait till the ramifications of his policies start happening then hammer him for it.
I really don't understand these hysterical pre-emptive attacks on trump.
As I said earlier, the reaction to trump, and what is essentially the childishness of the "left" is pretty staggering.
If you attack him on everything, and project the fears people have into ever little insignificant thing, then you are just drowning yourselves out in a cacophony of noise when there is actually something to criticise.
It's self defeating, trivialising, and doing no favours to anyone(bar upping the tv ratings of news channels).
I'll go as far as to say if it continues as a theme for the next 4 years, people/media will eventually discredit themselves and it will lead to a 2nd trump term.
People need to engage their brain and strategize, not just lash out.
`I really don't understand these hysterical pre-emptive attacks on trump.As I said earlier, the reaction to trump, and what is essentially the childishness of the "left" is pretty staggering.
er????
This one was simple, Press report the size of the crowd. Trump and staff dispute this proving their case by supplying no facts. The first thing his press secratary has to do is walk into a room and lie to a room full of people becasue it doesn't sound great having low numbers.
Next up is one of his key people going on national TV claiming it's not a lie it's "Alternative Facts"
The other part is a series of "threats" that press that are not favourable won't be getting invited to stuff. That undermines a free press from the start.
It might sound trivial but this is a really bad way to start things off.
I'll go as far as to say if it continues as a theme for the next 4 years, people/media will eventually discredit themselves and it will lead to a 2nd trump term.
If in 4 years his own ego doesn't undo him either the Republicans or the press will. Policy starts now and he will have to get something going for him.
mikewsmith - Member
er????
This one was simple
I don't think so. Not often you'll see me doing this, but look at chewkws photo above and the photo the press chose to make the image that will stick in peoples mind. There's dishonesty on both sides here.
I'm not saying trump and his team aren't bullshiting, i'm saying I don't care and the smart thing would be to let it go in favour of reporting something of more substance down the line.
It's not just this though, it's been open season and jumping on every little stupid thing he says since he started running, in contrast to actually discussing his policies(yes he does actually have some if you listen to any of his speachs, another myth propogated). It's a ratings games you are all arguing about, it ain't politics.
Tbh trump does actually have a point about being attacked by the media. And that actually does suit him. People need to realise they are getting done up like kippers here, it's what got him elected. The smart thing would have been to say, right you're president now, that carry on stops here, we're only here to report on your political activity and let him fall on his own sword with rational discussion of his policies.
But nup that'll not happen. And I fear there won't be proper scrutiny of his presidency because of it.
You think the republicans will go after him before 4 years? No chance. They and Trump are getting gave a free reign as no one really seems willing to discuss his policies with any form of seriousness.
How can they, if all trump needs to do is say something daft or move a bust, and the media goes into a hysterical frenzy.. How is it even possible to get proper scrutiny out to the general public in that scenario? It's not. But it's bloody good for the ratings though isn't it...
This game between trump and the media suits both. People should remember that.
I'm not saying trump and his team aren't bullshiting, i'm saying I don't care and the smart thing would be to let it go in favour of reporting something of more substance down the line.
It's not an either-or situation. When Obama became president, the number of people who came was used as a barometer for the enthusiasm for the new president. I vaguely recall the same for George W Bush as well. Just because it's Trump, it doesn't mean the press has to keep their powder dry, to save their comments for some time he does something really wrong. If a fact is that his inauguration had less people than Obama, the best thing for the Trump white house to do is to say nothing, or say "It's clear from the crowd and the protests that whilst we have a lot of the American people are on-board, a significant number are not which means we'll be working especially hard to unite the country behind President Trump". Instead they had an easily disproved tantrum and used phrases like "alternative facts" as if people outside their base believed them.
Obamas campaign didn't have the ridiculousness of Trumps campaign and the media hysteria to go with it.
You're not comparing like for like.
You think the republicans will go after him before 4 years? No chance. They and Trump are getting gave a free reign as no one really seems willing to discuss his policies with any form of seriousness.
Hios policies are currently at odds with the Republicans, he has upset them over the tax deals with the air con guys (they believe in a level playing field for all)
The Wall needs funding and vague promises about getting cash from Mexico are not going to cut it (the tea party side I think actually voted down a smaller increase to border security recently)
So 2 of his key policies are at odds with the party.
On Obamacare/affordable care he still wants some to remain whereas the far right want it all gone.
His stance on Russis is also at odds with many republicans.
He is currently a nessacary evil for them. He will be gone when they are sick of him one way or another.
Obamas campaign didn't have the ridiculousness of Trumps campaign and the media hysteria to go with it.You're not comparing like for like.
No, it's like for like. One inauguration's attendance compared to another inauguration's attendance is fair. That the man on the stage is more divisive is the reason for lower turn out which is fair comment. Trump needs to own that not just have people saying it's unfair.
ninfan using Junkyard's "straw man" technique 😆 they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
A better perspective, and probably PBS' final act.
Tom_W1987 - Memberthat is alleigiance to your ideology at the expense of people.
😆 I'm actually doing the complete opposite - I'm putting the people before ideology.
The world is more likely to be a slightly more peaceful place without Hillary Clinton as US president, without aggressive US interventionist policies, without US hegemony/full-spectrum dominance.
Besides, I remain unconvinced that the Trump administration's economic policies will not benefit ordinary Americans for certain - I adopt a more wait and see attitude.
Certainly a Trump presidency is extremely bad news for the plight of the Palestinian people - the greatest injustice of modern times imo. And there is no doubt that the bigotry and vile persona which comes with Trump and is likely to cause some US isolation from the rest of the world will, and has already, caused division and hatred within US society.
Nevertheless when it is seen in the context of the whole picture the positives of a Trump presidency rather than a Hillary Clinton presidency outweigh the negatives imo. I certainly don't think it's quite the disaster many seem to think it is.
And it is precisely those who put ideology before the interests the people who are blinkered and fail to see this.
atlaz - Member
No, it's like for like. One inauguration's attendance compared to another inauguration's attendance is fair. That the man on the stage is more divisive is the reason for lower turn out which is fair comment. Trump needs to own that not just have people saying it's unfair.
I'm not just talking about the inauguration. That's your focus.
ernie_lynch - Member
The world is more likely to be a slightly more peaceful place without Hillary Clinton as US president,
hmmm, lets see how operation eradicate ISIS plays out firstly.
ernie_lynch - MemberCertainly a Trump presidency is extremely bad news for the plight of the Palestinian people
yip.. 🙁
This is like watching a prequel to Orwells 1984.
I'm not just talking about the inauguration. That's your focus.
Yes. My post was about the inauguration. That's why I was talking about the inauguration rather than, say, nuclear proliferation. You quoted part of my post on the inauguration which is why I assumed, obviously wrongly, that you were talking about the inauguration.
And yes, I think it would be very good for the world long term, and democracy, if the US's influence and prestige in global affairs was reduced.
I agree with ernie on this. Which is why a strong, politically and economically united Europe is (was?) such a good idea.
seosamh77 - MemberGot to admit, the whole crowd size thing is indicative of modern day politics, why the hell is it even an issue and why are people still talking about it?
The numbers thing isn't an issue, the "declare war on the media and try to threaten them for not faithfully reporting your fictional version of the news, at the first post-inauguration press conference" thing is an issue. Unless you believe that this will only happen with trivial things like inauguration numbers but never with anything important.
I'm not sure the Trump guys really care that much about the numbers- it's possible they do but mostly it seemed to be the first opportunity to pick a fight.
I think the worrying thing is still that if Trump gets ousted during his term, Pence will replace him. With Trump in the whitehouse he is likely to get blocked with much of his agenda (if he actually has one beyond bullshitting the crowds). But with Pence in charge, he will get the full support of the Republican party to go hell bent delivering a tea party agenda.
mostly it seemed to be the first opportunity to pick a fight.
And continue the pushing the narrative that the liberal media are against him and cannot be trusted.
And issue a warning shot to the media that the [s]lies[/s] [i]"alternative facts"[/i] of the Glorious Leader cannot be questioned.
If they manage to cast doubt and spin on something as measurable, obvious and public as this, then it puts them in a really good position when it comes to more subtle debates.
Yup. You tend to think about these things as a reasonable person, "Why pick such a stupid fight- "BLACK IS WHITE. PERIOD" "We're putting forward alternative colours". But if you can win the stupid fight then you know you can win any fight, or at least cast doubt on any fact.
Meanwhile the other guy is going "why are we arguing about this stupid thing, let's not bother, and save it for something that matters"- but when it does there's already a false narrative in place and they've created a history of having "won" the last argument that you walked away from because it was too dumb to matter, and "proved" you to have been wrong, or lying
True and false and right and wrong aren't the same as winning or losing an argument, everyone knows that.
But as the fans of dishonesty on here have pointed out repeatedly, arguing about the lie keeps it in the public eye, and makes the conversation about the lie. It's pretty ugly.
This is quite nice. Gigapixel photo of the inauguration. You can zoom in for some nice little candids of people attending.
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/
Now that's interesting. From that angle the crowds do indeed look more continuous than those shots Trump's team are complaining about. Maybe the "empty" shots were taken when there were more people in those portaloos.
That is a cool picture !
Did look lots
I think crowd scientists ( they are a real thing) Estimated 600,000 for trump. ( A third less than obama)
The numbers Spicer used for the metro usage appear to be straight up lies/alternative facts
There's a shitload of people there, it's not like the VIPs turned up and nobody else. Dignified silence would have been better than the lies.
If you the click on the Michael o thumb nail wow just look at daggers being being sent over trumps way and one poor woman has taken to suffocation via a bag on the head. Or it's a member of mi5 doing a bit of auto self loving.
I'm amused by how many VIPs appear to be napping, even those on the main stage where they know there are cameras pointing.
I'm sure they are really "praying" or something 😆
Obama is praying I'm sure. if you believe in body language you could have a months work just on the first row
Besides, I remain unconvinced that the Trump administration's economic policies will not benefit ordinary Americans for certain - I adopt a more wait and see attitude.
Americans might, the rest of the world won't though, your myopia on this issue is staggering. Globalisation was a good way of evening the playing field a little for developing countries. It was an underhand way of transferring wealth from bloated, obese, overpaid former colonialists to people who used to be paid two dollars a day. American hegemony was being undermined by economic liberalisation, protectionism will just slow its death. Being pleased that Trump is in power because he is a buffoon and cuz "Iraq and Hillary lololololol" just evidences crass thinking.
Northwind - Member
seosamh77 - Member
Got to admit, the whole crowd size thing is indicative of modern day politics, why the hell is it even an issue and why are people still talking about it?The numbers thing isn't an issue, the "declare war on the media and try to threaten them for not faithfully reporting your fictional version of the news, at the first post-inauguration press conference" thing is an issue. Unless you believe that this will only happen with trivial things like inauguration numbers but never with anything important.
I'm not sure the Trump guys really care that much about the numbers- it's possible they do but mostly it seemed to be the first opportunity to pick a fight.
Tbh I think I'm just having a hard time believing that trump isn't in cahoots with the media in all of this anyhow. Not particularly the rank and file, but at the boardroom level. Like his campaign, the media is getting set up as the straight man to his comedian. A conveniently useful tool for obscuring information.
I have no evidence to back this up, other than the fact that Americas richest goons just took over all power. Bernie Sanders even found it funny that Trump says he's giving power back to the people while billionare after billionaire sat right behind him with front row seats (bernies paraphrased words.)
Just can't shake the feeling we're all getting played for fools here by all sides at the boardroom levels. As I say, I don't particularly blame the rank and file media, I'd guess they are as clueless as us, but still, it's constant subertuge imo. All smells off to me, we're watching a game.
Trump is and always has been the establishment.
Cool pic.
You'd expect Obama to have had more people at 2009 inauguration, I went to Rockerfeller Plaza on election night in 2008 as it was such a historic win. Trump in 2016 would have just been for the bizarre and most probably I would have just watched on TV.
This made me laugh
[img] 
[/img]
@seso Americans respect people who have made money. What they hate are the politicians who want go get rich by allowing themselves to be bought. Tye US i not being run by Americas richest people. Trump etc are mostly not at the top end of wealthy US business people like Dell, Gates, Allen, Buffet, Zuckerberg etc, and the majority below that most of us have never heard of.
You'd expect Obama to have had more people at 2009 inauguration, I went to Rockerfeller Plaza on election night in 2008 as it was such a historic win. Trump in 2016 would have just been for the bizarre.
indeed, electing the first ever Black president a truly monumentous moment in a country with a complicated history of racial politics vs electing another fat, rich, white guy with bad hair.
It seems such a pointless fight to pick
Im not sure I buy the argument that Trump is using this as a dead cat-
more like hes immensely insecure and his ego has been swollen to a ridiculous extent by all this so he believes his own hype.
Plus he (Bannon) has got a wider plan to bash the media until its compliant and only reporting exactly what he wants
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.
It would appear that both sides are a bunch of lying, cheating, scheming asshats.
Journalists manipulating information, who'd of thought it? 🙄
) 😯(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?
