President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

demfad

robinph wrote: »

I don't see what there is in comparing those two photos to cause any controversy? They are just slightly different angles of the same thing. But neither photo is showing a full Mall, it's just a good angle for a photo.

The only fake thing happening was the press secretary making claims about it being busier than Obamas inauguration, and he did plenty of referring to numbers.



[font=Guardian Text Egyptian Web, Georgia, serif]False. There were clearly less people watching in person.[/font]
[font=Guardian Text Egyptian Web, Georgia, serif]Numbers for viewing around the globe nobody has, but the early US TV viewing figures have been released and I think they showed a number less than for Reagan.[/font]

[font=Guardian Text Egyptian Web, Georgia, serif]This isn't about the result of the election, it is about the Presidents Press Secretary blatantly lying and thinking that nobody will notice.[/font]

There is another agenda here.
The administration is letting the media know that they will decide what are facts and what aren't facts. They are letting the media know that they are lying to their face and they don't care.
The media had millions of women marching on their side, timelapses photos and still Trump/Spicer/Conway dont care. Still denying it yesterday.
If they are like this with something so blatant, they are going to be like this with a lot more things that will be harder to disprove.
This is standard authoritarian tactics. The media needs to read up on how to counter gaslighting, and quick.

robinph

rgossip30 wrote: »

The 2 photos below are what started the controversy and an allegation of fake news . The second higher image was taken at a different time .Spicer's press conference made no further reference to numbers at the inauguration but stated that viewing numbers were greater on all media . The reporter who brought the issue had no response .

I don't see what there is in comparing those two photos to cause any controversy? They are just slightly different angles of the same thing. But neither photo is showing a full Mall, it's just a good angle for a photo.

The only fake thing happening was the press secretary making claims about it being busier than Obamas inauguration, and he did plenty of referring to numbers.

Sean Spicer wrote:

We do know a few things, so let’s go through the facts. We know that from the platform where the President was sworn in, to 4th Street, it 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 250,000 people. All of this space was full when the President took the Oath of Office. 

False. Those areas can clearly be seen to not be full, even from the photos that you linked to. It is even more clearly seen from the photos taken from the Washington Monument towards the Capitol.

Sean Spicer wrote:

We know that 420,000 people used the D.C. Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 that used it for President Obama’s last inaugural.

False. The 420,000 is the number of people for the whole day. 317,000 is the number for before 11am in 2009.
For Trump there were 193,000 people on the Metro before 11am, which isn't even as many as GWB managed for his 2nd term of 197,000.

Sean Spicer wrote:

This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe.

False. There were clearly less people watching in person.
Numbers for viewing around the globe nobody has, but the early US TV viewing figures have been released and I think they showed a number less than for Reagan.

This isn't about the result of the election, it is about the Presidents Press Secretary blatantly lying and thinking that nobody will notice.

Water John

Only differ on one point. they know, everyone notices but they don't care. They aim to reach their followers directly. Their followers are the only important demographic for them. Even as they use and manipulate them.
Sadly, not President for all the people. Just zero effort to reach out.

Where are all those saying he would change, once President?

Jan_de_Bakker

rgossip30 wrote: »

The 2 photos below are what started the controversy and an allegation of fake news . The second higher image was taken at a different time .Spicer's press conference made no further reference to numbers at the inauguration but stated that viewing numbers were greater on all media . The reporter who brought the issue had no response .
What he did say was fake and not disputed was that the bust of Martin Luther King was not removed as suggested in fake news and caused a racial slur on the President .
He did say that fake news will not be tolerated the reason why he had previously cancelled the previous conference .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6gMfIsUB-s&feature=youtu.be

Trump did win the election by a comfortable majority 304 to 277 get used to it .

Now Im confused, those 2 pictures and the timelapse don't correlate ?

whats going on ?

Billy86

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Now Im confused, those 2 pictures and the timelapse don't correlate ?

whats going on ?

They do actually, it's just the low and reverse angle perspective which is used to make groups of people/objects look more vast than they are in many lower budget movies. You can't see the empty spaces behind the people in each section because they are blocked by those same people, as the ground is at a lower level. The same way you can't see the part of the desk -directly- behind your coffee cup. Hence why you can see more pockets in the photo with the numbered red section than you can in the other one - it's taken from a higher angle.

It really does sound patronising, but the differences in perspective can almost be boiled down to "the cows in here are very small, but the cows out there are far far away."

Dyr

Water John wrote: »

Only differ on one point. they know, everyone notices but they don't care. They aim to reach their followers directly. Their followers are the only important demographic for them. Even as they use and manipulate them.
Sadly, not President for all the people. Just zero effort to reach out.

Where are all those saying he would change, once President?

The logic is fairly straight forward...you just keep lying and lying. Your moron supporters don't care so long as they're hearing what they want to hear and the neutrals eventually become immune to it, it just stops becoming a story.

America has been a long time coming to this point.

El_Duderino 09

Water John wrote:

Where are all those saying he would change, once President?

They're gone for now. I expect them to say he's the first president to do the job correctly - no nonsense etc. It's just the media making him look bad.

Inquitus

Interesting clip of Melania and Donald from the inauguration

https://twitter.com/Marv_Vien/status/823621167621619713

Mr.Micro

Strained, lol. Well let's face it, he gets all the love he needs from himself. That hair must take hours.

rgossip30

To throw another spanner in the works . The reason for the lower attendance could be that a large counter demonstration by left thugs was to take place , so many avoided DC because of this .
Sore losers .

Harika

rgossip30 wrote: »

To throw another spanner in the works . The reason for the lower attendance could be that a large counter demonstration by left thugs was to take place , so many avoided DC because of this .

Yes could be, if Trump wouldn't have announced that his inauguration was the biggest ever, and then his press officer repeating this lie and then the one with the "Alternative facts", the attendance would have slipped as side joke and we already wouldn't talk about it anymore and instead of what he is actually doing e.g. TTP

Jan_de_Bakker

I don't know why they are so hurt over this tho, I mean the 2009 inauguration was always gonna attract way more people - it was historical - and hugely so.
To be honest, I know I've been defensive over Trump on here but at this stage can't he just get on with it and drop the twitter spiel ..

Inquitus

rgossip30 wrote: »

To throw another spanner in the works . The reason for the lower attendance could be that a large counter demonstration by left thugs was to take place , so many avoided DC because of this .

No one cares, the facts are the attendance was less than 1/3 of Obama's first inauguration, there are many reasons for this, DC is a Democrat city, Obama was the first black president etc etc.

Why this became an issue is because Trump said beforehand he expected to rival Obama's numbers, and then when he utterly failed to do so, he lied about it in a press conference, and then had his press secretary produce an angry rant where he also lies about it in his first White House press conference.

Trump brought all this negative coverage on himself because his Narcissism does not allow him to accept that whatever he does is not the biggest and the best, he is unable to let things slide, be the bigger man, or indeed be presidential about it. All he needed to do was say "Great attendance, not as many as Obama had but hey its a Democrat city, I look forward to the big job of Governing that starts now." Had he put that out to the press the story would have died on Saturday and his first day in office would have passed off without being the shambles it turned into, but as I said his Narcissism prevents him from doing the right thing in cases like this.

Akrasia

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I don't know why they are so hurt over this tho, I mean the 2009 inauguration was always gonna attract way more people - it was historical - and hugely so.
To be honest, I know I've been defensive over Trump on here but at this stage can't he just get on with it and drop the twitter spiel ..

Trump getting elected as the first oompa loompa is just as historic as Obamas election.

InTheTrees

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I don't know why they are so hurt over this tho, I mean the 2009 inauguration was always gonna attract way more people - it was historical - and hugely so.
To be honest, I know I've been defensive over Trump on here but at this stage can't he just get on with it and drop the twitter spiel ..

He's back on it again today, dredging up the claim that clinton won the popular vote by three million because those three million were illegal aliens.

No evidence for it at all but he seems obsessed that he lost the popular vote thus making him an "unpopular" president. His narcissistic ego wont allow him to accept it.

Inquitus

InTheTrees wrote: »

He's back on it again today, dredging up the claim that clinton won the popular vote by three million because those three million were illegal aliens.

No evidence for it at all but he seems obsessed that he lost the popular vote thus making him an "unpopular" president. His narcissistic ego wont allow him to accept it.

Yep he's utterly unable to accept facts he does not like, current list of issues stoking his Narcissism:

• He lost the popular vote by 2% and @3m votes (Illegal voting)
• His Inauguration was smaller than other first term inaugurations in recent times (Fake News/Alternative Facts)
• The Polls which state his approval rating is very low (Fake News)

rgossip30

Inquitus wrote: »

No one cares, the facts are the attendance was less than 1/3 of Obama's first inauguration, there are many reasons for this, DC is a Democrat city, Obama was the first black president etc etc.

The crowd numbers cannot be accurately defined and are estimates . You got proof that its less than 1/3 . I don't dispute that its less .

robinph

rgossip30 wrote: »

I don't dispute that its less .

Finally.

alastair

The car crash of the administration's PR so far, and Trump's ongoing self-obsession doesn't bode well for anyone, Republican party included. I predict internal pressure to curb so much idiocy ahead of midterms. It really is a clown show.

rgossip30

robinph wrote: »

Finally.

As I said before many pages ago wait and see what develops .



Just look at Hilarious Hillary in full rant its all a conspiracy more entertaining than the Don .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-vbqSLritY

The Russians are responsible and so on and on .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-xjiXfJ58Q

The forgotten scandals .

frostyjacks

Reinstating the global gag rule is great news. Many lives will be saved as a result.

El_Duderino 09

Jan_de_Bakker wrote:

I don't know why they are so hurt over this tho, I mean the 2009 inauguration was always gonna attract way more people - it was historical - and hugely so. To be honest, I know I've been defensive over Trump on here but at this stage can't he just get on with it and drop the twitter spiel ..

It's setting the narrative that Trump is he biggest and best and any mention of anything to the contrary is to be seen as an attack on Trump.

Take thing Sean Spicer said the other day. There are no official figures to measure the attendance [...] This was the most bigly viewed inauguration in attendance and on TV ever period. If the first part is true (no official figures) then the second part can't be true (most people in attendance).

There could be unofficial figures that prove there were more people there that 2009 but the evidence in the public domain is fairly clear cut. He's asking for an act of faith which should be a concern.

It has the hallmarks of authoritarianism.

demfad

alastair wrote: »

The car crash of the administration's PR so far, and Trump's ongoing self-obsession doesn't bode well for anyone, Republican party included. I predict internal pressure to curb so much idiocy ahead of midterms. It really is a clown show.

You are no doubt right. From the information i've seen on social media the people on the womens marches were sharing contact information (phone numbers most effective) on their elected reps and senators. They were also sharing tactical information on swing seats and vulnerable Republican seats for the midterms.

El_Duderino 09

rgossip30 wrote:

The crowd numbers cannot be accurately defined and are estimates . You got proof that its less than 1/3 . I don't dispute that its less .

That's progress. It sounds like your dispute is mostly with Trump who's saying it was the biggest attendance ever.

rgossip30

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's progress. It sounds like your dispute is mostly with Trump who's saying it was the biggest attendance ever.

No just the less than 1/3 attendance estimate , twister . I would like to progress on but I keep getting dragged back to this .

Billy86

rgossip30 wrote: »

No just the 1/3 attendance twister .

You agree that it was smaller than the crowd at Obama's inauguration.

Trump/Spicer disagree and say it was bigger than the crowd at Obama's inauguration.

So you do indeed dispute what Trump/Spicer.

rgossip30

Billy86 wrote: »

You agree that it was smaller than the crowd at Obama's inauguration.

Trump/Spicer disagree and say it was bigger than the crowd at Obama's inauguration.

So you do indeed dispute what Trump/Spicer.

On and on and on . Spicer did not dispute the numbers in his press conference so why should I .

robinph

rgossip30 wrote: »

No just the less than 1/3 attendance estimate , twister . I would like to progress on but I keep getting dragged back to this .

Do you have a problem with Trump making claims of 1.5 million or instructing his press secretary to tell lies about the attendance numbers?

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

Reinstating the global gag rule is great news. Many lives will be saved as a result.

Who cares about the pregnant rape victim in a refugee camp, or a woman who'll be left disabled by pregnancy, amirite? It's birth at any cost! :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

alastair wrote:

The car crash of the administration's PR so far, and Trump's ongoing self-obsession doesn't bode well for anyone, Republican party included. I predict internal pressure to curb so much idiocy ahead of midterms. It really is a clown show.

From speaking to my Texan relative, his unpopularity with the media helps his popularity with his hardcore supporters who also hate the media.

This attendance numbers denial and alternative facts business isn't an accident. Whether it proved to be a mistake or not is another question.