Inaguration crowd size

[oxmixmudd]

FWIW...my silent applaud....

And you are not going to convince anyone here. The ears are closed and truth really no longer matters. We are in the "Trump Age."

Thanks - and it appears you are correct, at least as it concerns MM :)

[Charles]

I[...]Unlike Trump and many of his followers, I still believe that the truth is not relative, is not arbitrary, and that it MATTERS in this world when someone is lying or has no regard for the truth. That it MATTERS when people close their ears and eyes and refuse to see.[...]

Very important point. Those few lines hold the explanation as to why Trump has been a tregedy even for quite many of those who support him. He has convinced them to go for relativism even when it comes to ethics. They have lost so much credibility and integrity that their "succes" is a complete loss.

[oxmixmudd]

You won't find me disagree that's Trump's complete disregard for truth is very worrisome and that people here like Cow Poke hand waving it away by going "You shouldn't take Trump seriously by what he says, but by what he means" are being a bit ridiculous, and I doubt they'd afford a democrat president the same interpretive leeway, even half of it.

However, all that standing, the crowd sizes just don't matter. Is Trump a narcissist who wants to waste air time about how big the crowd was at his inauguration? Yes. Are there news media who are trying to make it look like a lot fewer came to the inauguration than there did, especially papers not fond of them? Yes.

But does a crowd size tell you even indirectly whether a president is going to be good or not? Not really.

We agree as regards crowd size. But I see Trump's ridiculous incapacity to accept the fact his crowd size was smaller and to push his staff to lie about it IS and indicator of a much larger problem.

However, my focus here is on trying to show objectively that the idea the news media is purposefully posting pictures from earlier in the day (assuming the crowd size was significantly smaller then) to try to make the crowd look smaller than it actually was is just another paranoid conspiracy theory.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Very important point. Those few lines hold the explanation as to why Trump has been a tregedy even for quite many of those who support him. He has convinced them to go for relativism even when it comes to ethics. They have lost so much credibility and integrity that their "succes" is a complete loss.

I think that sums up my primary concern here. From a conservative cause perspective, electing Trump may have 'won the battle' as it were, but his antics have galvanized so many against the GOP's current condition, including turning away many if not most of the GOP's more moderate members (like myself) that in the end it may well have lost the war. We'll get a window into that in November.

Jim

[Roy]

Yes, you have correctly identified the various zones, but that still does not explain the glaring discrepancy between the overhead shot and the other images taken during the ceremony if we assume they are showing the exact same number of people.

There is no discrepancy to explain. As Jim has shown in ought-to-be-unnecessary detail, they show the same crowd from a different angle.

What does explain the discrepancy is that the images taken during the inauguration are showing a significantly greater volume of people than the image that was posted to Twitter almost an hour before Trump took the stage. Furthermore, we know the latter is the truth because we have the word of an eyewitness who was actually there!

"I was in the building at the bottom of picture on right yesterday. Shot was taken early, area was considerably fuller by time of speech." -Brit Hume

(Emphasis mine)

Looks like MM believes Brit Hume rather than his own lying eyes.

[Sparko]

ETA: I will make one concession. As hard as it has been to make this case, and as many people as there are that are confused by the apparent discrepancies between these pictures, it is realistic to think Trump, at least initially, believed his audience was as big or nearly as big as Obama's and that these pictures from the monument just couldn't be real based on what he thought he saw.

Thank you. That was my main point to begin with, since you accused him of being such a liar about it.

I will in turn admit that Trump, being Trump, loves to exaggerate and use hyperbolic adjectives to describe everything.

I don't think he was lying, but he was wrong. And again, I think the MSM tried to exaggerate the other way and make it look like the crowd was even less than it was. Probably just to troll Trump into reaction.

[One Bad Pig]

I think that sums up my primary concern here. From a conservative cause perspective, electing Trump may have 'won the battle' as it were, but his antics have galvanized so many against the GOP's current condition, including turning away many if not most of the GOP's more moderate members (like myself) that in the end it may well have lost the war. We'll get a window into that in November.

Jim

On the other hand, the Democratic response to Trump has turned many moderates away from them as well.

[oxmixmudd]

On the other hand, the Democratic response to Trump has turned many moderates away from them as well.

I don't believe that. I have no one I interact with outside these pages not already 95 to 100% trump that is not so disgusted with Trump that they will vote against anything even remotely tied to him.

Jim

[One Bad Pig]

I don't believe that. I have no one I interact with outside these pages not already 95 to 100% trump that is not so disgusted with Trump that they will vote against anything even remotely tied to him.

Jim

Journalists in NYC were famously surprised that Reagan won; they didn't know anyone who'd voted for him. Also, Trump's approval rating is up considerably among blacks.
I could've sworn there was some news a couple months or so ago about a rash of people switching to Trump out of disgust over Democrat reactions, but I can't remember enough about it to successfully find it; it's not as if such a thing would be massively covered by most media platforms anyway.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't believe that. I have no one I interact with outside these pages not already 95 to 100% trump that is not so disgusted with Trump that they will vote against anything even remotely tied to him.

Jim

Look up the #WalkAway movement.

[Sparko]

Journalists in NYC were famously surprised that Reagan won; they didn't know anyone who'd voted for him. Also, Trump's approval rating is up considerably among blacks.
I could've sworn there was some news a couple months or so ago about a rash of people switching to Trump out of disgust over Democrat reactions, but I can't remember enough about it to successfully find it; it's not as if such a thing would be massively covered by most media platforms anyway.

One of my cousins has been a lifelong Democrat and she said she is upset with all of the Antifa Rioting, the way liberals have been treating Christians, and MSM treatment of Trump and says that she would vote for him if he ran again.

[EvoUK]

Look up the #WalkAway movement.

Pretty sure that's been debunked as mostly propoganda.

[One Bad Pig]

Pretty sure that's been debunked as mostly propoganda.

By the likes of TYT/Mother Jones, or something more reputable?

[carpedm9587]

Thanks - and it appears you are correct, at least as it concerns MM :)

You don't truly think that surprises me, do you?

I'll tell you what amazes me. The evangelical community in this country has embraced a man who is almost the antithesis of the message of Jesus of Nazareth. They speak of false prophets and those who would subvert the message, and along comes a man like Trump and they embrace him wholesale. Jesus of Nazareth had some powerful messages: the least will be the greatest - turn the other cheek instead of seeking vengeance - bless those who persecute you - those who give from their need instead of their excess give more - and the list goes on. There is much to be admired about this message. But the only message evangelicals seem to care about is throwing the moneylenders from the temple (yet money is so consumingly important...) and Jesus calling the Pharisees and Sadducees to account. But they forget WHY Jesus is said to have called them account. He calls them to account because they flaunt their religion and require all to live by LAW instead of by the spirit of love he believes is the essence of god.

ONe has to wonder who the modern-day Pharisees and Saduccees are. I know who gets MY vote...

[Cow Poke]

You don't truly think that surprises me, do you?

I'll tell you what amazes me. The evangelical community in this country has embraced a man who is almost the antithesis of the message of Jesus of Nazareth. They speak of false prophets and those who would subvert the message, and along comes a man like Trump and they embrace him wholesale. Jesus of Nazareth had some powerful messages: the least will be the greatest - turn the other cheek instead of seeking vengeance - bless those who persecute you - those who give from their need instead of their excess give more - and the list goes on. There is much to be admired about this message. But the only message evangelicals seem to care about is throwing the moneylenders from the temple (yet money is so consumingly important...) and Jesus calling the Pharisees and Sadducees to account. But they forget WHY Jesus is said to have called them account. He calls them to account because they flaunt their religion and require all to live by LAW instead of by the spirit of love he believes is the essence of god.

ONe has to wonder who the modern-day Pharisees and Saduccees are. I know who gets MY vote...

You might dial down the sanctimony a bit, Carpe - the Pharisees and Saduccees [sic] were religious figures. That's why Jesus called them out. You seem to think Trump got elected Pastor-in-Chief. And that bit about "embracing Trump wholesale" is a steaming pile of horsie poo.

But, hey, you have a sympathetic audience, so kabuki on!