Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 reds8n wrote:



"The crowd was huge, a million and a half people, the media are lying"

What a bold new era we're in now it seems.

On the plus side your chocolate rations have been increased by 125% already.

Inaugurations have always drawn respectable-sized crowds. And considering the threats of violence and "protests" going bad, Trump actually had a decent turn-out.


Leftists and neocons seem to forget that fact when they compare Trump's crowd to Obama's back in 2008, and use it as a gauge of his popularity.


Personally, I see no need for Trump's crew to go into "damage control" mode over something so trivial.

But they are going into damage control mode, and flat out lying in a plainly obvious manner, which is a problem and indicative of the issues with this administration.

"Alternative facts" and all that...

I throw up in my mouth a little every time I hear that phrase.

Seriously, it sounds like a Colbert bit. And that's what the actual administration is throwing around, because Glorious Leader couldn't stand the thought of not drawing the biggest crowd ever.

Yeah, this whole thing is like a bad parody skit...but real life.

The crowd size is something that would only be bandied around by left-leaning groups, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump admin responded. The crowd size isn't really important (and we already know that he's very unpopular), the important thing is that they will lie, in an official capacity, about such an insignificant thing. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, they all lied or deceived, but none of them did so constantly about such insignificant gak.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The crowd size is something that would only be bandied around by left-leaning groups, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump admin responded. The crowd size isn't really important (and we already know that he's very unpopular), the important thing is that they will lie, in an official capacity, about such an insignificant thing. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, they all lied or deceived, but none of them did so constantly about such insignificant gak.

'bama did the same' Is the apologists insulation and inoculation every time this government and president is to be called out on its shenanigans. They will be getting way way worse.

Interesting number fact so far today. Welfare spending as & of GDP rose during the terms of both Bush presidencies, and dropped during the Clinton and Obama presidencies.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The crowd size is something that would only be bandied around by left-leaning groups, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump admin responded. The crowd size isn't really important (and we already know that he's very unpopular), the important thing is that they will lie, in an official capacity, about such an insignificant thing. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, they all lied or deceived, but none of them did so constantly about such insignificant gak.

'bama did the same' Is the apologists insulation and inoculation every time this government and president is to be called out on its shenanigans. They will be getting way way worse.

Even Obama managed to go 24 hours without replacing all the reports about the actual inauguration with reports about something stupid he said.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:



"The crowd was huge, a million and a half people, the media are lying"

What a bold new era we're in now it seems.

On the plus side your chocolate rations have been increased by 125% already.

Inaugurations have always drawn respectable-sized crowds. And considering the threats of violence and "protests" going bad, Trump actually had a decent turn-out.

Leftists and neocons seem to forget that fact when they compare Trump's crowd to Obama's back in 2008, and use it as a gauge of his popularity.

Personally, I see no need for Trump's crew to go into "damage control" mode over something so trivial.

 Vaktathi wrote:
But they are going into damage control mode, and flat out lying in a plainly obvious manner, which is a problem and indicative of the issues with this administration.

"Alternative facts" and all that...

It's so weird. Why the hell lie about something so meaningless as the Inauguration crowds? What upside are there here?

It would have been a great opportunity to blame the low numbers on the threat of violence from the fringe groups. Scoring some political points.

It's monumentally stupid to lie about stuff that's so easy to conclusively prove false. There's a reason that it's almost impossible to get straight answers from politicians about anything.

 Zywus wrote:
It would have been a great opportunity to blame the low numbers on the threat of violence from the fringe groups. Scoring some political points.

I don't think there are many points to score there honestly.

Setting aside the usual, any attempt by Trump to do his usual response to those protests in a high profile manner would simply invoke all the reports about O'Keefe paying people to disrupt the event, and with the Women's March following the next day peacefully it would only call more attention to the matter.

In truth I think Trump would prefer the media pay attention to a stupid comment about whether or not it was raining. He can spin the religious angle, and tell his supporters the media is just being petty and focusing on something that doesn't matter.

 Zywus wrote:
It's so weird. Why the hell lie about something so meaningless as the Inauguration crowds? What upside are there here?

Trump's desperate attempt to boost up his ego. He has remarkable insecurity issues.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
It would have been a great opportunity to blame the low numbers on the threat of violence from the fringe groups. Scoring some political points.

I don't think there are many points to score there honestly.

Setting aside the usual, any attempt by Trump to do his usual response to those protests in a high profile manner would simply invoke all the reports about O'Keefe paying people to disrupt the event, and with the Women's March following the next day peacefully it would only call more attention to the matter.

In truth I think Trump would prefer the media pay attention to a stupid comment about whether or not it was raining. He can spin the religious angle, and tell his supporters the media is just being petty and focusing on something that doesn't matter.

Well tomi or whatever her name is said the low numbers were because of threats of violence from liberals

I still can't believe how badly they handled something as minor as this.

It would have been so easy for them to say, yes, we know the crowds were lower than 4 years ago, but many of our supporters come from rural America: Nevada, Alaska, Montana etc etc

so it's not easy for them to get here, but we appreiciate the support from the people who could make it. Thanks for turning up to show your support.

We obviously don't agree with the protestors, but we respect their right to protest and hope to work with them in taking the country forward blah blah blah etc etc etc

Case closed. easy easy easy x 1000

Normally, and we all know this, a newly elected politician gets a honeymoon period for a few months. It was never going to be long for Trump but even so, he still had some momentum, benefit of the doubt.

When you read the biographies of FDR and LBJ, they know you have about 18 months before events and the quagmire of Congress starts to suck the life out of your administration.

So they waste no time, they hit the ground running, as FDR and LBJ famously did. They don't waste time and energy on minor issues like this.

But then again, they were first class politicians...

Threats from white power fanatics and conservatives didn't keep a massive crowd out of Obama's inauguration, so I guess Trump supporters are just made of weaker stuff

 d-usa wrote:
Interesting number fact so far today. Welfare spending as & of GDP rose during the terms of both Bush presidencies, and dropped during the Clinton and Obama presidencies.

Bush was only following the tried and tested Reagan tactic of taking on big government by er, increasing big government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Threats from white power fanatics and conservatives didn't keep a massive crowd out of Obama's inauguration, so I guess Trump supporters are just made of weaker stuff

Don't bring your alternative facts here

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I still can't believe how badly they handled something as minor as this.

Well he's Trump. With skin so thin you need molecular level ruler to measure...

Scary thought what will happen with bigger things when something as trivial as inauguration crowd will make him explode like a volcano.

 Vaktathi wrote:
But they are going into damage control mode, and flat out lying in a plainly obvious manner, which is a problem and indicative of the issues with this administration.

"Alternative facts" and all that...

If nothing else, I think the phrase Alternative facts is going to be in use for a very long time, so if nothing else, the Trump administration has already given something to political and historical discussion.

It's up there with Nixon's no white wash at the white house, or the President can bomb anybody he likes.

I'll just go on the record now than and say "alternative facts" is a bs phrase. There's only facts, which have alternative interpretations

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I still can't believe how badly they handled something as minor as this.

Well he's Trump. With skin so thin you need molecular level ruler to measure...

Scary thought what will happen with bigger things when something as trivial as inauguration crowd will make him explode like a volcano.

If a President is on the ropes after suffering a setback during the mid terms elections, or bad approval ratings during a re-election campaign, then fair enough, you can understand the anger and short temper if they are under pressure.

But I dread to think what is going to happen if say, American sailors are held by Iran, like 2 years ago or a bomb goes off at an American embassy abroad, or some other major crisis...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'll just go on the record now than and say "alternative facts" is a bs phrase. There's only facts, which have alternative interpretations

Next time I get in trouble at work, I'm using alternative facts as an excuse

 LordofHats wrote:
Threats from white power fanatics and conservatives didn't keep a massive crowd out of Obama's inauguration, so I guess Trump supporters are just made of weaker stuff

I LOL'd.



But seriously, all joking aside, the far-right nutcases back then didn't have the organization, numbers, or backing to be much more than a public relations nuisance and trash talk. I recall two self proclaimed "neo-nazis" , Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman, making threats in Tennessee against Obama back in '08. Whether of not they would have tried anything stupid is subject to conjecture, since they got their little punk asses busted by State law enforcement and the BATFE.


There were probably others that I haven't heard of or recall.



On the other hand, 217 of the 230 protesters arrested during Inauguration Day in D.C. are facing felony rioting charges for the destruction of public and private property and assault on public officials (six riot police were injured). If there were any problems in other cities, I haven't heard.

But the Women's March was a shining example on how a peaceful demonstration should be carried out. I might be in political opposition to them on the political spectrum. But I salute their civility and they have my respect. I also suspect that their message resonated better, since they weren't setting cars on fire and smashing up businesses.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
But seriously, all joking aside, the far-right nutcases back then didn't have the organization, numbers, or backing to be much more than a public relations nuisance and trash talk.

Neither did the far-left nutcases in 2017. A handful of people smashed some property and fought the cops, but the inauguration proceeded just fine without any major violence. If Trump's supporters were scared off by such weak threats then LordofHats is right, it's pretty embarrassing for them.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I LOL'd.

Mission accomplished

On the other hand, 217 of the 230 protesters arrested during Inauguration Day in D.C. are facing felony rioting charges for the destruction of public and private property and assault on public officials

I'm just curious how much Project Veritas paid them (damn this jumping to conclusions thing is easy, wish I'd been doing it for years XD)

If there were any problems in other cities, I haven't heard.

There were protests across the country, but far as I know the violent variety was strictly in DC.

But the Women's March was a shining example on how a peaceful demonstration should be carried out. I might be in political opposition to them on the political spectrum. But I salute their civility and they have my respect. I also suspect that their message resonated better, since they weren't setting cars on fire and smashing up businesses.

I think it helps that what they want is actually clear. The rambunctious folks on the other hand I have no idea what they wanted. You know, other than a general sense of "not Trump", and in my book if you're going to riot you better have a really really good reason for it, and it really shouldn't be the first resort in a general sense. And the violence in DC was just a violation of both of those XD I don't know what they specifically wanted, and with Trump only having been President for 72 hours, I don't get the sense that less extreme methods were attempted, let alone exercised. Which is just great because what we really need is a return to the good old days when rioting was just a matter of course.

But then I can't help but feel there's a lesson in all this about ignoring anger

Alternative facts are allowed.
There is more than one truth.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Alternative facts are allowed.
There is more than one truth.

When it's something that can be counted no there really isn't. 2+2=4 no matter how you might try to give alternative facts that it's actually 7.

Trump&co just decided they want to rename word "lie"

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:



"The crowd was huge, a million and a half people, the media are lying"

What a bold new era we're in now it seems.

On the plus side your chocolate rations have been increased by 125% already.

Inaugurations have always drawn respectable-sized crowds. And considering the threats of violence and "protests" going bad, Trump actually had a decent turn-out.


Leftists and neocons seem to forget that fact when they compare Trump's crowd to Obama's back in 2008, and use it as a gauge of his popularity.


Personally, I see no need for Trump's crew to go into "damage control" mode over something so trivial.

That's not the real point.

The real point is firstly that Trump claimed falsely that the crowd was the largest in history and secondly that he claimed that media reports to the contrary were lies.

I don't agree with you that Trump's gang needn't do damage control on something so trivial. For one thing Trump doesn't feel it is trivial. In Trump's mind, everything Trump does has to be the biggest, the best ever, and anyone who says different is a liar, fool, sad, a terrible person, etc. and has to be attacked.

For another thing Trump actually is right to be worried. Trump's approval rating is the lowest in history since Herbert Hoover (I think...) He won the election by a minority vote and the narrowest EC margin for decades. There is murkiness around the whole Russian hacking affair. The small crowds reflect these facts and whatever the technical legal position of holding the presidency, senate and the House, Trump and the Republicans do not have much political currency to spend so they need to try and hold on to whatever they can.

The administration depends on enough Trumpublican voters continuing happily to accept and defend the lies, bs and chicanery.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Alternative facts are allowed.

A fact is a fact.

There is more than one truth.

Some say the glass is half empty, some say the glass is half full but the fact of the matter is that the glass is neither full nor empty.

Facts are not debatable. Interpretations of facts are, because the world is a complicated place and especially with complicated things it's not as simple as reciting a list of facts. Fact; it was raining during Trumps inauguration. Saying that God looked down and decided not to rain on Trump's big day, that the photographs taken during his inauguration showing that it was raining are fake, and that he had the largest inauguration crowd of any president when there are empty bleachers along his travel route, is not a matter of "alternate facts." It's a matter of facts versus bull gak.

 LordofHats wrote:
Facts are not debatable.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Is that a fact?

 LordofHats wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Alternative facts are allowed.

A fact is a fact.

I don't really see why making a fuss out of it. I mean, we got plenty of "alternative facts" on this topic and all the topics before here. This never stopped people supporting them to keep posting them, over and over.

Well, now I think it's best to focus on what will really be done and how it will be reported.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is that a fact?

Only if you're a Jedi