President-Elect Trump is creating even more jobs than we thought!

he got a jub there

 

One of the larger ticket areas. They each had their different characters and levels of rowdiness, and I don't want to misrepresent my experiences as portraying the entire crowd.

I'm in DC for the semester to take a few classes and do a full-time internship. Might turn into a complete job -- I'm done with school at the end of this semester anyway. I'm there with a program of about 45 other people from across Texas, and we are all living together in an apartment complex.

Inauguration: Silver section felt like how I have heard Trump rallies described. There were prolific boos for Chuck Schumer (and just about any democrat named), to the extent that I couldn't hear several parts of his speech, and read them through captions on the screen. The most surprising moment to me was when Schumer mentioned equality and respect for various groups, and the crowd rumbled and booed when he said "...gender identities, sexual orientations..." People were generally friendly to each other in the crowd, and mainly assumed that everyone around them shared their views as Trump supporters. That's how people talked to me at any rate. I took pictures for a couple people, and did a crowd shot or two (requested because I'm tall). One man, after I took his picture, said in a conversational way to me and those around us: "Hillary should be hung from the neck until dead.... I think it's about time we start punishing traitors in this country. Her and Obama both." I made no reply, and didn't smile -- I wish I had responded with disapprobation, and would have had I thought about it, but was a bit nervous at the time; I went by myself to the event.

March: Large and rather disorganized. The crowding was pretty constant, and while we (I was with a group of 10 total, some I knew, some didn't) did our best to follow the planned route, there wasn't a great deal of communication from anyone about the event. We were out of audio reach of any speeches that were given. There was noise almost constantly -- chants sometimes, waves of shouts, or even just people talking to each other. Like in the inauguration, people were friendly to those around them. I took a couple more pictures and crowd shots for friends and strangers. The general mood was also surprisingly positive: I had expected people to seem more pissed off (and there were several signs that proclaimed as much) but almost all of the faces I saw were smiling, and people seemed happy to be there. There were tons and tons of signs, most of them personally made, and of widely varying quality in every respect. Almost no cell connection the entire time because of the crowds. The police were friendly and helpful, and I didn't see any violence or even any conflict. There was one especially kind officer who I saw take some pictures with a couple of the marchers. Most of the other officers looked calm, and expressionless; they mostly got cheers when passing by, although some people, including one of the ones in my group, seemed more cautious about cheering the police, although not disdainful or rude. The whole event was less intense and nervous-making than I expected it to be.

Those would be my general observations. If there's anything in there, or other subjects, on which you want me to elaborate, I can do my best.

 

Did you meet anyone during the march that talked about the protesting experience during the Inauguration itself, talk with any of the cops about it etc.? Second hand info but might be interesting.

Any thoughts/observations on the inauguration itself, if you feel like sharing?

 

not a twitter fan, but I saw this and giggled

 

1. Thank you for your description of an inaugeration as experienced by a person in the crowd.
2. Welcome to Germany in the 1930's

 

You know what the sad thing is for me?

Information these days is so garbled that my first reaction was to ask: "whom is/are the anonymous source(s) telling CBS this?" "Why do we trust their confirmation of such reports?"

Not that I don't believe such a thing happened mind. Rather, it's just been that there has been so much fabricated anti-Trump stuff consistently coming out of both the media and the Intelligence community that I feel compelled to ask: "so is this one of the real complaints or is this just more made up stuff that ultimately ends up serving Trump's interests in spite of its intent because it becomes easier and easier for him to deny criticism even when it's valid?"

 

See, this is what I mean, you've got this photo comparison being thrown around:




The problem with it? It doesn't show the full crowd. Earlier that morning several protestors had barricaded the entrances and the photo for Trump itself had only been taken before the full crowd had assembled (not sure if that's also the case for the Obama photo or not). It's be described as "both taken shortly before noon" but it seems at least the Trump photo was taken a couple hours before noon.

It's been pointed out that CNN's highresh picture even shows the contradiction:


While the angle is different and deemphisizes any empty space, it is still clear that the crowd was much larger and more full than the initial photo showed. (You can see the full image here, I think: http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/ )

That doesn't mean Trump had the "biggest crowd ever" or anything of the sort (it's very possible that Obama still had bigger crowds, which makes a lot of sense given the historical context of having a man of color sworn in). It does show, however, that the media had misrepresented the crowd's size at the very least to exaggerate their claim (ostensibly to make Trump look worse).

It also means that the later comparison to the Women's March was likewise bogus since it was based on comparing (which the article falsely claims was representative of the "peak" crowd at the inauguration event) to:


Which also undercuts the March, because it makes it look like it needs to be faked to be able to compete, rather than using the accurate data.

 

The gigapixel image is pretty neat, it's fun to zoom in on people.


I haven't done much reading on this myself, but this video presents a pretty good summary:
(please excuse clickbait title) (he talks about the gigapixel at 4:51)


The whole discussion is a convoluted mess of guesses and hearsay. The thing is, it doesn't matter who had the bigger crowd. That's just a presidential ****-measuring contest. What matters is that the press secretary was telling blatant lies about the inauguration (including things like the types of security used). If they're willing to lie about unimportant things like this, think about how dangerous it would be if they lied about something more serious.

 

Clickbait titles aside, the Philip DeFranco show is one of the better short-form news commentary channels on YouTube, IMO; though it doesn't always cover the most relevant topics.

 

This is going to be fun to go over later. I will point out some things and also include response from white house etc. I strongly suggest rereading it first. Look at how light on facts this article is. Also look for the key word "invited" thats your first clue.

 

Exactly!

That's why it frustrates me that the media used the photo at all, it distracts from real data that still likely would have supported the claim (not that it's actually particularly important). It seemed like it might have been focused on in the rush to get the report out: "see how dinky Trump's Innie is!" or to exaggerate the difference or whatever.

When "journalists" are more focused on promoting a specific political narrative rather than the accurate news even when the news would have supported that narrative if properly reported in the first place, things are horribly wrong.

 

Also since I am a fan of facts, what is the exact quote and who is saying it was "biggest ever" and what were they saying was the biggest ever.

I can tell there arent too many lawyers in here lol

oh boy i just read those 2 articles too. I will have to make some free time to help some grasp language...again please read carefully and look for exact quotes in those 2 articles that sok posted.


ah yea i see him editing away lol

 

also please help me clarify..when you say fox fact checked trumps lie, can you please supply me with the full quote of his lie.

 

I'm not saying "journalists" aren't also reporting factual information. Heck, as the youtube @NevrGonaGivUup posted talked about even Spicer reported factual information (mostly regarding the bust, and some minor things regarding the inauguration that don't make up for incorrect information/lies he also put out on that issue).

What I'm saying is that some "journalists" today seem far more willing to skip fact-checking critiques of Trump (but not anything that Trump or supporters claim) than they should be, which leads to, effectively, lies coming out on all sides which muddies the true facts of any given event. You think it's about what individuals choose to focus on, but that's not what I'm getting at.

Trust in the media (albeit divided along party lines, unsurprisingly) is at a very low rate as of the last gallup and other polls I've seen on the subject, less than 30% I think in total, or around that number.

So whenever the media screws up, intentionally or otherwise, in their critique of Trump or any other news it puts even their accurate reporting into question. For all the same reasons why people would (and should IMO) be wary of Trump's administration (and, to be fair, pretty much every administration I've been alive for and many of learned about, albeit to varying degrees).

It supports this schism where you've got a different set of "alternative facts" and supports division and discourages proper discussions between people.

Trump's staff also putting out inaccurate information and/or intentionally lying is obviously also to blame for this, I'm not letting him off the hook for it. I'm just trying to say it's a really shitty situation in general. I suppose I might also be more harsh against the journalists since it's their job to report accurate information (and it usually does get their eventually... even if one needs to dredge through multiple articles to get to it sometimes).

 

what was spicers lie can you supply me with the exact quote ? I see much talk about this but very little facts.

 

For example, Spicer said this was the first time that coverings were used to protect the grass in the mall, which is wrong. He also spoke about magnetometers limiting entry to the mall, when none were used at the mall according to the Secret Service. These are the verifiable inaccuracies that I'm aware of, there may be more.


Obviously, that specifically doesn't mean that Trump himself lied about things (I haven't checked his Twitter account yet though so he might have made some grand proclamations there or in later press briefings). It also is very possible that any lies regarding his statements were unintentional and based on Spicer having simply been fed incorrect information which was then regurgitated... though I for one would hope that a spokesperson for the President would, you know, fact check.