Re: Inaugeration Crowd -- Ego or War on Media Lies?
But what would help put things in perspective is to see the original pictures Trump was objecting to as showing the crowd from some perspective that in his judgment minimized the actual numbers, based on his view from his position up front. I don't see anything in these photos that makes that comparison.
Personally I think the problem is all in his head, and his head alone. That may be an indication of an obsessive ego, but I hope not, for the sake of the country.
The worries about the country that come from the left seem to me to be the product of feverish bias unrelated to the realities of Trump's personality and policies. It takes a negatively prejudiced posture even to see things the way you all do.
You see obsessive ego where I see Trump's honest desire to fulfill his campaign promises and do right by his supporters. His record of orders given just this past week demonstrates to me his determination to fulfill his obligation to us and our vision of America. I don't see personal ego in any of these things, and not in his concern about the crowd size either, which to my mind reflects the same desire to see the values he represented on behalf of his supporters treated with respect, and the size of the crowd represents the degree of support he had for those values, which he doesn't want to see diminished.
In other words, to his mind it's the media diminishing US, the PEOPLE and the American vision we share, NOT HIS OWN EGO.
RAZD, the two pictures you are comparing in this post are not the same as those in Message 8 that I was having trouble comparing. The one on the right in this post has a big gap in the crowd, right in front of the first body of water, that doesn't exist in the other photo. It may be the same camera and same angle and distance for the two you are comparing, but the time between the one in Message 8 and this one on the right must be different.
I keep trying to tell you it is not about the crowd size per se, it's about his perception that the media lied about it in its original reports. ...
It's about both, Faith, it is about his self image as the only important person in the world (massive ego) and it's about his pogrom on the media, continually shading them and accusing them of lies even when the facts are in your face verified.
... as far as I know -- we'd need to see the original pictures he saw and I don't know if that's in any of the ones shown here. ...
Try this site. I find it slanted to the right and more apologetic that unbiasd.
Introduction: For the past four days the internet has been abuzz in a heated debate regarding the crowd size of President Trump's inauguration. It is the opinion of CRG that the actual numbers of the crowd size are not the primary reason for this debate. Supporters of President Trump allege that the media is deliberately lying in order to make the president look bad in the eyes of the American people. They claim that this demonstrates that the media is involved in some kind of conspiracy and that they are not to be trusted. Opponents of President Trump allege that the media is telling the truth and that President Trump is lying and that should be taken as evidence that he is not to be trusted. At the end of the day, the root of the debate is about one issue: trust.
President Trump went on record saying that he saw a crowd that "looked like a million-and-a-half people" and "went all the way back to the Washington Monument." That statement can be easily verified as it was in a press release he made from CIA Headquarters. Is it a lie? Here's what the crowd looks like from a low-angle camera mounted slightly higher and above President Trump's podium.
From this perspective it certainly appears that the crowd is large and it might appear to go all the way back to the Washington Monument. To that end, President Trump's statements that the field was not empty seem at least superficially accurate. In his mind he's telling the truth. But personal truth, what we believe to be true, is not always the same thing as empirical truth supported by hard evidence. Does the crowd actually go all the back to the moment? Is it really 1.5 Million people? Is it actually "record setting" in size?
Looking at the same area of President Trump's photo using specific items as land marks and comparing crowd density, there is no question - while President Trump's crowd was large, it was not remotely close to the same size as Former President Obama's 2009 inauguration. We have highlighted areas in President Trump's inauguration crowd that are visually less dense than the 2009 crowd.
In the interest of transparency and fairness some might point out that the camera lens in the 2009 photo does obscure part of the 2009 crowd. From this photo it's not entirely possible to determine definitively that the 2009 crowd did not have the same gaps. Fortunately, there are other pictures from other angles that can be used. Many people refer to the CNN images that show the side-by-side comparison which was the initial photo that sparked the controversy to begin with.
It is the opinion of this researcher that there is some deliberate misleading on the part of the press. Many of the images showing the comparison omit the time stamp data altogether. In this case Vox does a good job at least being transparent. The Presidential Inauguration begins at Noon, so the image from the 2017 crowd is one full hour ahead of the event. The crowd definitively increased in size since that photo was taken.
Several versions of the image on the left exist with time stamps ranging from almost one hour prior to the speech up until the speech commences. However, in all versions of photo the National Mall was never completely full. This is further supported by a time-lapse video from the same angle provided by PBS. Although the crowd does grow, it never reaches the same level as the 2009 inauguration.
Here is the video
People straggle in fill out some clumps around the large TV screens, and then they leave.
quote:Clayborn Global, LLC is a holding company that was created in 2016 to reorganize other businesses. Clayborn Global does not produce products or offer services of its own. As such, our website is minimal because we have no real direct interaction with the public. We invite you to take a look at our companies by visiting the companies page from the menu bar.
Curiously I note that the paper has a single author, it is an opion piece, the holding company was set up in 2016 (the research group was set up in 2014), and the company website is hosted by amazon. Their papers are listed on: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...research/research.html
Seems to me that they are trying to 'normalize' Trump as someone who was mistaken instead of someone who is obsessed.
Let's look at Trumps RAGE that the Women's March the next day drew larger crowds to the mall, as well as millions around the world. See if you can 'normalize' that.
It's about both, Faith, it is about his self image as the only important person in the world (massive ego) and it's about his pogrom on the media, continually shading them and accusing them of lies even when the facts are in your face verified.
Obviously this discussion is hopeless. I see none of his actions as about personal ego but about his obligation to represent his vision of America that won him the election. And after all, right now he IS the most important person in the world, and that's a big responsibility.
Pogrom on the media? That's a laugh. Black humor unfortunately. The media are out to undermine Trump with their every word, but his corrective accurate self-defense is a "pogrom?"
Unfortunately I have reached the point where I can't process any more about the crowd numbers so please don't keep posting about it until I catch up.
I guess I missed whatever Trump said about the women's march. I'm certainly not taking your word for his attitude given your record of liberal spin on everything we've discussed so far. "Rage?" About what?
Pogrom on the media? That's a laugh. Black humor unfortunately. The media are out to undermine Trump with their every word, but his corrective accurate self-defense is a "pogrom?"
Including all the foreign media? Fascinating.
I guess I missed whatever Trump said about the women's march. I'm certainly not taking your word for his attitude given your record of liberal spin on everything we've discussed so far. "Rage?" About what?
The president is a 70-year-old child whose TV time must be closely monitored because any news story that upsets his ego will trigger a temper tantrum followed by irrational demands that his indulgent, overwhelmed guardians will be helpless to refuse.
Or so Donald Trump’s aides keep confiding to the nearest available reporter.
On Sunday, one of the president’s confidantes told Politico that his staffers have to control information that may infuriate him, a task made difficult by the fact that the leader of the free world gets bored and likes to watch TV.
That same day, some Trump aides provided the New York Times with a portrait of the president as a moody adolescent.
The lack of discipline troubled even senior members of Mr. Trump’s circle, the paper wrote, some of whom had urged him not to indulge his simmering resentment at what he saw as unfair news coverage.
And then, on Monday night, Trump’s staffers whispered an even more vivid account of his rough weekend to the Washington Post.
President Trump had just returned to the White House on Saturday from his final inauguration event, a tranquil interfaith prayer service, when the flashes of anger began to build.
Trump turned on the television to see a jarring juxtaposition massive demonstrations around the globe protesting his day-old presidency and footage of the sparser crowd at his inauguration, with large patches of white empty space on the Mall. As his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was still unpacking boxes in his spacious new West Wing office, Trump grew increasingly and visibly enragedOver the objections of his aides and advisers who urged him to focus on policy and the broader goals of his presidency the new president issued a decree: He wanted a fiery public response, and he wanted it to come from his press secretary.
After forcing Spicer to baldly lie to the White House press corps about the size of his inauguration crowd, the president fumed that his press secretary’s performance was not forceful enough. According to Axios, Trump was also incensed by Spicer’s poor taste in suits, and is already considering treating the former RNC staffer to his signature catchphrase.
Yes, the very best they can do is simply record his words and print them verbatum.
I heard an interview yesterday with a German translator who has to translate his speaches in real time - she said it's almost incomprehensible "he uses such primitive, repetitive language, it makes us sound very bad, very unprofessional."
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Trump Aides Keep Leaking Embarrassing Stories About How He Can’t Handle Embarrassment The president is a 70-year-old child whose TV time must be closely monitored because any news story that upsets his ego will trigger a temper tantrum followed by irrational demands that his indulgent, overwhelmed guardians will be helpless to refuse. Or so Donald Trump’s aides keep confiding to the nearest available reporter. On Sunday, one of the president’s confidantes told Politico that his staffers have to control information that may infuriate him, a task made difficult by the fact that the leader of the free world gets bored and likes to watch TV. That same day, some Trump aides provided the New York Times with a portrait of the president as a moody adolescent. The lack of discipline troubled even senior members of Mr. Trump’s circle, the paper wrote, some of whom had urged him not to indulge his simmering resentment at what he saw as unfair news coverage. And then, on Monday night, Trump’s staffers whispered an even more vivid account of his rough weekend to the Washington Post. President Trump had just returned to the White House on Saturday from his final inauguration event, a tranquil interfaith prayer service, when the flashes of anger began to build. Trump turned on the television to see a jarring juxtaposition massive demonstrations around the globe protesting his day-old presidency and footage of the sparser crowd at his inauguration, with large patches of white empty space on the Mall. As his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was still unpacking boxes in his spacious new West Wing office, Trump grew increasingly and visibly enragedOver the objections of his aides and advisers who urged him to focus on policy and the broader goals of his presidency the new president issued a decree: He wanted a fiery public response, and he wanted it to come from his press secretary. After forcing Spicer to baldly lie to the White House press corps about the size of his inauguration crowd, the president fumed that his press secretary’s performance was not forceful enough. According to Axios, Trump was also incensed by Spicer’s poor taste in suits, and is already considering treating the former RNC staffer to his signature catchphrase.
Wow what a piece of snark masquerading as journalism. Such a report is proof of what I've been saying about the media's determination to undermine Trump in any way possible, and you swallow it whole. If he has a bad temper I could wish he didn't but "leaking" such stuff is far worse than having a bad temper, as would be pretending it was leaked but making it up out of whole cloth. You're on the wrong side of this.
Has there ever been another President who has been vilified in the press by leaks ab out his personal life purported to come from his own Aides? If this is true the lot of them should be fired, but how do I know it's even true? The Clintons had some pretty nasty personal stuff that could have been leaked but was it leaked while they were in office? Only the Monica incident was finally exposed, but that was big enough to need to be exposed. I have no doubt there's plenty that could have been leaked about Obama that wasn't, or if it was the media politely suppressed it. Kennedy's womanizing could have been leaked but it wasn't until long after his death. Etc. etc. Why do you even give credence to such sleazy reporting about Trump? Why in fact do you trust anything the NYT says or any of the other MSM?
Did you bother to notice that the whole piece is nothing but slander and subjective allegations? There isn't an objective point in any of it. And that's a separate issue from the sleazy circumstances of its supposedly having been leaked by "aides." How about you go through it and mark all the phrases that are there only for the purpose of denigrating the man? Snide comments, no facts. Have you that much integrity? You have no grounds to say "it's about both" his ego and his position when you are willing to post such tripe as if it were legitimate reporting.
As for his supposed rage against the women's march, apart from whether the rage existed, and who cares if it did? why doesn't it occur to any of you leftists that again he has to be reacting to the blatantly biased media coverage? Again that's not ego, that's his determination to call out the lying media. The media loved the women's march and hate Trump and this unjournalistic political bias comes through in everything they do. Again it has nothing to do with the numbers as such, it has to do with the media's war against Trump and all of us who support him.
If a reporter prints his words verbatim, how can that be spin?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
No I got your point and it's nave. the surrounding context will define those words, and the writer's attitude in general. Also, Trump's words are often taken out of context, his own context being truncated to promote a false understanding of what he's saying. No, the words themselves do not tell the whole story, not by a long shot.
The problem is that white "flooring" that they put down to protect the grass. Pink hats at the Women's March show up against that background. White robes and white hoods don't.
No it's not even "semi" true, it's flat-out false, nothing but leftist PC. There is NO racism in Trump's agenda none. But there is plenty on the other side.
the surrounding context will define those words, and the writer's attitude in general.
There is no context to recording his words verbatim. None - he says what he says. He chooses the time and place to say them, then he says them.
Also, Trump's words are often taken out of context,
Verbatim means reporting it all. Then we have it.
No, the words themselves do not tell the whole story, not by a long shot.
The words are what we have. The rest is what you object to - people attempting to 'interpret' and 'put in context'.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
