Random Politics & Religion #18

Really all I'm saying is that the media deliberately underreported the size of his crowds. That much is ridiculously clear, it's not an optical illusion, the mall was much fuller than the aerial photos shown.

Was having a conversation with my wife about this. She really didn't get why it was being made into a thing by the press.
I said that's the point the press really didn't make this into a thing. It was a simple observation, one that I made, one that you made while watching the event. Trump didn't like that everyone noticed and made it an issue.

He had is press secretary make an obvious lie and he delivered it in a manner that made the press go "*** this noise, we're not putting up with this ***". So now its a thing. Especially after Conway made the "alternative facts" statement.

As you indicated things like this over non issues do not bode well for our future.

Both parties are making it into a stupid issue. Would be less of an issue if Trumps team just stfu and accepted it.

It would be even less of an issue if the MSM never attempted to report facts I don't like like this.

Just state that the estimated number of people who attended Trump's inauguration is less than Obama's, but don't bother showing obviously irrelevant pictures (Obama's was taken at the height of his inauguration, while Trump's was taken while people were still getting together. To say that they were taken within the same timeframe is an outright lie).

It would be paramount to taking a picture of the same area now and report that attendance is down. Actually, I wouldn't put it past CNN to do that.....

What facts I don't like were they reporting though? He had a smaller turnout then what Obama did, are you guys really going to sit here and debate when you have picture evidence that states otherwise? Are you really that dumb to not see the fallacy in your "opinion" on something factual. Aren't you perpetuating the "facts I don't like" mantra by trying to *** your way out of something that was factual.


Your only palapable evidence that it may have been bigger was comparing two pictures at different angles where as there is actually a live feed that shows all the people coming in and leaving for BOTH of them, stop deluding yourself and pull your head out of your *** for like five minutes. You are nothing but a toy and pawn to Trump if you really are falling for this ***.

Furthermore all Trump had to do was shut up and accept the fact, instead he made it about some petty pride. This is what the next 4 years will look like and this is how the sheep who can't think for themselves will act for the next 4 years.

I honestly believe it's Trump's brand of marketing and promotion. He constantly promotes himself, his brand, his products as "the best" "the greatest" and so on with the adjectives.

Which is fine in business since it's a buyer beware world.

However, it's carrying over into governance which is not good with respect to credibility.

Other things you'll soon pick up on is the simple negotiation tactic of denying the value of objects in order to obtain them at a lesser rate. So when you hear him start to verbally negate a product, an organization or political body, he's actually saying it's good but doesn't want to pay full price or give them their full due.

It's a basic negotiation tactic from a position of power, and it more than likely impact perceptions on his credibility once everyone picks up on it.

It was supposed to be just a minor thing to throw out there reporting the event, nothing that required much consideration and the appropriate reaction should have been - as some people initially did - well, big *** deal!

The issue however is Trump's reaction through that embarrassing moment with Spicer with the stupid alternative facts and the "I'll tell you what you should write". This does not bode well in the slightest, but once again it gets sidetracked.

Also we all know Bush was the star of the day

We all know that Trump's inauguration turnout is going to be less than Obama's. The thing is, it was going to be smaller regardless of who was president because Obama knows how to turn out a crowd, and you were looking at a historical moment in 2009 (first black president being sworn in).

What the falseness in the reporting is those pictures. Showing one picture during the height of attendance for one event, and showing another picture while people were still coming together, and reporting based on those two pictures and presenting it as evidence is not only dishonest, it's outright fake.

It's just as paramount to report that as it is to report that the Russians have hacked into a powergrid in Vermont, using a laptop who happened to have an easily accessible malware that's not even connected to that stated powergrid as evidence of such foulplay.

I don't know what picture you saw but the picture I saw was comparing the peaks at both events.

Also keep in mind that the Trump campaign and his "supporters" are basically saying his turnout was higher then Obama's, if not one of the highest.


Trump is president now, he isn't a candidate. We don't have to defend his claim in hopes that he gets elected. We need to be critical of every action now that he is elected.

Both pictures are in Alternative Fact, time stamped at 12:01 PM which is the moment they were taking oath office. Which would be the moment of peak attendance.

Of course they are going to say that. It would be highly surprising if they didn't.

We don't need to be critical at every single thing he did today.

"Trump tweets, we must impeach him now!"
"Trump took a dump, that's a war crime against his own country!"
"Trump went to bed tonight, it's obvious he doesn't give a ***about us at all!"

What really gets me is the level of criticism compared to 8 years ago. Especially with the media, where we are basically getting the headlines outlined above.

Let's talk about his visit to the CIA and how that offended former CIA agents and everyone that paid attention to Trump's rhetoric during the election cycle.

There was criticism 8 years ago, Obama was just doing less obvious things though.


So we just need to write-off the fact that his press secretary came out yelling at the press for telling the truth and then lying in front of everyone?

Headline: "Trump apologist snowflakes who vilified Obama every step of way the last 8yrs whine 'shoe on the other foot is unfair; after 48hrs' at 11"

I was going to stay out of this, but my bullcrap detector sounded the alarm.

Time-stamped by the cameras or time-stamped by the news agency reporting it? Most of the comparisons that I've seen had Trump's at 11:04 compared to Obama's 11:30. ABCNews said that the pictures were taken right around noon and "time-stamped" them, but those look suspiciously like the same ones other people are posting.

Fortunately you can watch the time lapse and figure this out for yourself.

The one that was posted earlier? The time of day isn't even on that.

There was less criticism from the media about Obama than there is about Trump today. There hasn't been a cry about impeaching Obama from the time he was elected up until his inauguration (most of it was due to the fact that nobody wanted Biden as president, but that's besides the point). We have had more people demand Trump's impeachment in the last 72 hours than we had with Obama's 8 years.

Plus, don't forget that there are more criticism among conservatives against Trump than there ever has been against Obama by the liberals. Several people are still cheerleading him by outright lying about his "accomplishments" even on this website.

Why not, it worked for Ernest. I mean, he did lie to the American people about several facts (Benghazi's video, IRS not targeting conservative PACs, Obama not knowing about Clinton's email server, CIA targeting media outlets, just to name a few). He got a pass for all that. So, why not Trump's guy?

Reuters, the organization takes the photos, indicatesd they from 12:01 pm which is scheduled moment of the presidential oath of office. They've been photo documenting that moment from top of the Washington Monument for some time now.

Let's pivot to Trump lying about how he loves the CIA after negating them during the campaign cycle. Or to continue this topic let's talk about how Trump used photos from the Obama inauguration for his cover photo until called out for it.

Or let's talk about how he is being sued by the ethics committee. Or you can continue with the obvious distraction.

*correction:

The photo of Obamas inauguration is time stamped at 11:30 am and the one of the Trump is 12:01:18 p.m

However, they are both photos of when the respective presidents were taking their oath of office.

That picture was making the rounds on social media before 11:17am eastern time, as seen here.

Then there are multiple sets of photos being thrown around, because I'm seeing more of the 11:04/11:30 ones than anything. Anyway, it's dumb for the press to make such a big deal about it (estimates put him well ahead of other Republican inaugurations), and it's equally as stupid for Trump's people to make a big deal about it. Trump's actually in office now, and he's actually already doing things that are relevant. Instead, we have news about crowd sizes and tax returns.

Marketing where have I seen that before...

Oh no the CIA are offended what ever shall we do ! I suggest we send them a Hallmark card.

No let's not !

Got to take into account the amount of time it would take somebody to take the still picture and then post it on an obscure website (such as this one).

I would give the actual timestamp to be around 11:10 at the latest.

Trump is the President and you can go ahead and put that in your pipe and smoke it !