Trump knows exactly what they’re trying to do with this. What’s being reported is that Trump is a megalomaniac, that he’s an egomaniac, and that he’s a narcissist. And he cares about all these things like crowd size and everything.I'll just do a poll:
What they’re not reporting is they start it. They report. They put up a couple of phony pictures side by side to try to create the impression that nobody cared about Trump’s inauguration. Well, I had Trump on this program back in October, and I asked him about the constant hit back via tweet or other method attempt use. And he said he did it because he’s not gonna sit there and allow his name to be muddied and just sit there and have a lie establish and the roots planted and have it start growing. If it’s about him, if it’s about his name, his business, or his family, he’s not gonna put up with it....
२३ जानेवारी, २०१७
The media are going after Trump about the inaugural crowd size because it's part of "creat[ing] the illusion that Trump is not popular, that he didn’t legitimately win, that there isn’t that much excitement for him."
"To them, it’s not a nitpick, and that’s why Trump’s fighting back on it," said Rush Limbaugh, on his show today.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९२ टिप्पण्या:
Machiavelli might say best response would be to pick one carefully vetted target and destroy it completely as an example.
The media are not good people. They are all owned by the oligarchs and they no longer report news. They are propaganda to the core. The vagina protests were planned so they could advance a narrative that all women hate Trump. Everything they report is to push a narrative.
They should be countered, called out, and dismissed as liars at every turn. Todd, Stephanopolous, and 2/3rds of all the other reporters should be called out as the previously employed by democrat hacks they are.
Most of the major media are leftists who oppose Trump, but pretend to be honest brokers of world events. This gives the Dems 3-4 extra points in every Presidential election.
Trump is smart to hammer them - in response to whatever little dig they levy at him.
There is a reason reasonable Romney lost and unreasonable Trump won -- Trump fought harder, plain and simple. Even to someone who admires Romney (like me), I have to concede that Trump's political instincts were better.
A former president once suggested punching back twice as hard. Little did he suspect that the Republicans would ever elect a person willing and able to deploy that tactic.
My response to people on this is that Republican have to work and don't want to take time off for frivolous stuff like this.
Extremism in the opposition of fascism is no vice.
Part of it is that he has to fight back. Bush II never did and decided at some point history would vindicate him. Well, maybe, but he got crucified in the present.
Another part of it is launching squirrells out over the dog kennel. Newt Gingrich gave a very interesting speech a few weeks ago, transcript here:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/30/newt-gingrich-trumpism-explained.html
describing what Trump is doing, and I find it pretty plausible (despite NG getting 'played' himself by Clinton, he's a smart guy).
Machiavelli might say best response would be to pick one carefully vetted target and destroy it completely as an example.
Privatizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by repealing the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 would be a sweet, sweet start, and imminently doable.
I don't know how to answer, because Trump has got where he is being himself. I do believe the Press needs to be scolded every day until they start acting like professionals. Maybe Spicer can handle that. I don't ever want to go back to the Bush era where the liberals ran wild with the most inane Bush hatred and nobody defended him except Rush. It didn't help the Republican cause to have such a good man torn down. One of the reasons I voted for Trump is because he's fighting the good fight against political correctness, against the leftist monoculture. It is ironic that he also heavily criticized Bush, but hey, he's the right guy for the fight we're in now.
Can someone point me to where anyone from the Trump team said that it was the biggest crowd?
Sean Spicer did NOT say it Saturday night. It's on Youtube, go listen to what he did day.
President Trump did NOT say it at the CIA speech Saturday.
Can anyone provide an exact quote of President Trump, Spicer or anyone else in the team saying it was the biggest crowd?
Quote please with link to video or verbatim transcript.
John Henry
37% of you [so far] are crazy voting for #1. I dislike Trump but even I am sensible enough to vote for him to stop complaining and simply do his job. Trump is a big cry baby.
Via the NY Times:
"Mr. Trump grew increasingly angry on Inauguration Day after reading a series of Twitter messages pointing out that the size of his inaugural crowd did not rival that of Mr. Obama’s in 2009. But he spent his Friday night in a whirlwind of celebration and affirmation. When he awoke on Saturday morning, after his first night in the Executive Mansion, the glow was gone, several people close to him said, and the new president was filled anew with a sense of injury."
Good grief. Can we get someone with backbone in the White House? Please?
John
“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.”
—White House press secretary Sean Spicer, remarks to reporters, Jan. 21, 2017
“I looked out, the field was — it looked like a million, million and a half people.”
—President Trump, remarks to the CIA, Jan. 21, 2017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/22/spicer-earns-four-pinocchios-for-a-series-of-false-claims-on-inauguration-crowd-size/?utm_term=.cb490c851419
At this point who are we (meaning everyone: the public, the media, the Democratic party) to lecture Donald Trump on how and with whom to pick fights? By now isn't it obvious he's the master and everyone else the student?
This seems silly on the part of the media and Trump. It was a decent size crowd so the stories, especially the photo comparison, were dumb. Calling a press conference to say 1 million people were there is even more stupid.
Trump seems to be playing off the distrust of the media. But he slightly built up their credibility on this one. If he's going to go after them so much it should be based on their opinions or their false reporting. Nonetheless, this squabble got more attention than the women's match. So it might be a sort of success in Trump's mind. And presidents and their spokespeople lie constantly so I'm not sure this even hurts him much.
It's going to be a long and exhausting four years. Trump does live him some drama.
The press and Dems are going to run the same play they ran against Bush II. Crank everything up to 11. Have the news constantly about strife and turmoil. Protesters in the streets. Dems and press pursuing every little scandal as Watergate. Constant ethics complaints and investigation.
Then in four years run on the return to normalcy and quiet if only you elect the Dems. It is rather shocking the press and Dems openly blackmailing the public.
It worked on Bush because he didn't fight back. We'll see how Trump does but I'm already exhausted.
@Matt,
Via the NY Times:
"Mr. Trump grew increasingly angry on Inauguration Day after reading a series of Twitter messages pointing out that the size of his inaugural crowd did not rival that of Mr. Obama’s in 2009. But he spent his Friday night in a whirlwind of celebration and affirmation. When he awoke on Saturday morning, after his first night in the Executive Mansion, the glow was gone, several people close to him said, and the new president was filled anew with a sense of injury.
Yoo-hoo, Matt! We're talking about whether the messengers are trustworthy & here you go posting something like this as if it's Gospel. Uhhhm, like who was the source inside the WH for this little tidbit? Do you really think there's someone on Trump's staff who's gunning for him this early in the game?
This is a prime example of what everyone's complaining about! Did you fail to notice that?
Leftists need to stop whining about everything Trump does or says. You lost, we won.
Sorry, if you get your feelings hurt about the size of crowd, but stop complaining for God's sake. The MSM and liberals need to grow up.
There is a discernible strategic pattern emerging here, although it might not yet be deliberate.
1. Trump & Spicer crowd size FALSE = FAKE NEWS.
2. Pay no attention to Trump, Spicer, Republican Congress, Republican state houses and governors. All FAKE NEWS. Only Trump supporters and voters pay attention to such fake news. And of course Salena Zito.
3. Listen to TRUE NEWS instead: NYT, NPR, WaPo, etc.
4. Understand that Peregrin Took will be a slam dunk as Democratic presidential nominee in 2020.
"We'll see how Trump does but I'm already exhausted."
Yes, a lot of moderates are going to get "exhausted". Probably the best thing, if you're that type, is just cut back on your News consumption.
Frankly, I find it invigorating. Finally, we have a President who fights back. With Bush II, I got so tired of his not responding, I just said screw it, he doesn't care, why should I? I'm not going to fight for a loser.
And that's one reason Bush II ended up in 2008 with one of the lowest POTUS ratings ever.
Blogger Matt said...
“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.”
—White House press secretary Sean Spicer, remarks to reporters, Jan. 21, 2017
Thank you Matt. My point exactly and I think I even quoted that in an earlier thread.
the key word there is "witness" also "around the world". The press heard that as "in attendance" and has been lying about it ever since.
There does seem to be evidence that it was the largest audience to witness an inauguration when you count attendance, TV/Cable viewers and online viewers. CNN alone had 16mm online viewers in addition to their national and internation cable viewers.
I looked out, the field was — it looked like a million, million and a half people.”
I heard this too this morning. I think I even mentioned it in that earlier thread. What I didn't hear was "biggest crowd ever". Not from President trump, not from Spicer and not from Kellyann Conway.
And this is a lie? That it "looked like" a million to a million and a half people.
If you want to make a big deal out of President Trump's ability to estimate crowd size, fine. But that is not the story and that is not what I am questioning.
Don't change the subject.
get a grip, Matt.
John Henry
It's going to be a long and exhausting four years. Trump does live him some drama.
People don't like exhausting drama from the President. We've got families, jobs, friends, kids -- we've got enough stuff going on in our own lives. We're busy and many of us don't want or need drama from the President.
“I looked out, the field was — it looked like a million, million and a half people.”
Hardly an absolute declaration.
In related news, liberal "comedy" writers just can't resist the fun of mocking a 10 year old boy.
This time it's a writer at Comedy Central, Stephen Spinola.
@mr_mcstevie
I don't want my mom to get raped, but if she does I hope it's by Barron trump--small pp would be painless & we'd win lots of money in court"
What's next? Torture fantasies?
Remember, a GOP staffer lost her job because she sent out a tweet that was mildly critical of one of the Obama girls.
Trumpit will probably offer to give Spinola a BJ.
Trump's quote sounds reasonable. He said it looked like a million to 1 1/2 million people. That is what all the hullabaloo is about?
Spicer's comments also sound defensible. How can anyone know how many people around the globe watched in person, on TV and Internet?
Unbelievable.
Blogger mccullough said...
Calling a press conference to say 1 million people were there is even more stupid.
Who did that?
If you say Spicer, please provide me the time from the Youtube vid of the press conference.
Either back it up or admit you are mistaken and/or lying.
John Henry
Thank you Matt. My point exactly and I think I even quoted that in an earlier thread.
This was like NPR and other "fact-checking" Trump's speech and pointing out that it was false that closed factories were like tombstones. Tombstones don't look anything like them.
Wonder how many Federal employees in D.C. and adjoining counties who qualified for the "Inauguration Holiday" took the day off but did not attend? Trump should issue a directive that in the future attendance is mandatory for getting the day off with pay.
Trump should also announce that if re elected, he will move the ceremony, parade, and receptions to 1/23/21 (instead of 1/20/21). That would be Saturday instead of a Wednesday - that way people who work in the "real" world would have a chance to attend. Not everyone works for the government or academia or on the government dole, that would account for some of the lower numbers of this one versus 2008.
@wwww,
We're busy and many of us don't want or need drama from the President.
You mean, as opposed to drama from the IRS, DoJ, Dept. of State, Dept. of Ed., DEA, & EPA when you happen to be the unlucky citizen who crosses them?
You think the Little Sisters of the Poor were out there shopping for "drama"?
So Fabi; you are giving Trump a break on the vagueness of his language. Which is of course a regular thing with Trump, with his weird way of speaking.
You say it was "[h]ardly an absolute declaration."
By the same token, if that is your standard, this was hardly "an absolute declaration":
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-crowd.html?_r=0
Go ahead and break down the Times' reporting, and point out all of the falsehoods contained therein. If you can find any. Get to it, and report back ASAP.
I'm impressed by your 7-choice poll. It takes a lot of thought to be able create a poll like that. I don't know how you do it. I answered that he has to take the high road like Michelle Obama does. However, when significant, possibly damaging, lies are proffered, he needs to have a staff person issue a statement setting the record straight. His ugly abuse of twitter is a no go; it's neither professional nor presidential, and it is a serioius misuse of his valuable time. It is embarrassing, frankly.
I don't know how to answer, because Trump has got where he is being himself.
Yeah. Thirty years of this sort of fighting with the press is how Trump went from being one of a number of Manhattan real estate developers to President. It's very obviously effective.
John
Spicer said:
“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — BOTH IN PERSON and around the globe.”
—White House press secretary Sean Spicer, remarks to reporters, Jan. 21, 2017
I put the important part in capitals. He said IN PERSON. That would mean people right there at the inauguration in DC. First, that does appear to be a fabrication at best. Second, the second part about 'around the globe' cannot really be verified. Just because Trump and Spicer SAY it is true does not make it true. 'Getting a grip' is about understanding that basic idea.
I can tell you that if Trump had not made such a big deal about crowd size then the media - other than the initial news about the crowd size - would have left it alone. But Trump goes on and on and on about it thus inviting the media to keep reporting on it. It's crazy. The man is not balanced. Sorry.
Where is the option: "Trump is a lunatic who is lies and think God stopped the rain, when he obviously didn't."
The Media will adopt whatever strategy they think will take down Trump, presumably by demoralizing his supporters, driving up his negatives in the polls (which conveniently they commission). The short-term goal is to scare the Republicans in Congress into refusing to support Trump's policies/appointments, longer term to energize the Democrat base into retaking the House (good luck) and Senate in 2018 and limiting Trump to one term in 2020. Backup bonus plan is Impeachment.
I personally would pick my fights more carefully, but you gotta respect a guy who dances with what brung him.
Trump keeps the media looking like morons.
That's necessary if soap opera isn't going to edit every national debate.
Instead, the media will be out of the debate entirely. Who listens to morons.
There is a discernible strategic pattern emerging here, although it might not yet be deliberate.
Gell Mann's amnesia.
Chuck Todd absolutely hammered Conway on this yesterday. Which is why I like the guy -- he won't take "no comment" for an answer.
That said, it's an extremely petty question to spend twenty minutes hammering on. Aren't there, well, actual governance issues that could be better pursued instead?
Conway was the Rep's DH, and Schumer was the Dem's. Neither exactly cast his/her side in a favorable light. (My husband asks whether there are actually DH rules for Sunday morning talk shows. I think they started when Susan Rice was made to do the rounds after Benghazi. From then on, there was a single person, copiously briefed, that you sent to all the press people.)
In the meantime, while everyone is chasing the crowd squirrel:
President Trump repealed Obamacare (Saturday and first steps)
Put a freeze on most federal hiring
Pulled funding from overseas abortions
Cancelled TPP
Got the endorsement of the carpenter's union https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/823632639873740800
Got the endorsement of Jesse Jackson
NY Post got first question at today's presser breaking a tradition that AP goes first.
McCain, Graham and even Little Marco decided not to oppose Tillerson.
Not bad for a first day on the job. He had a good weekend but that was just la ñapa
John Henry
@Chuck,
Go ahead and break down the Times' reporting, and point out all of the falsehoods contained therein
There are basically no assertions there, Chuck. There's the assessment of one guy. That's it.
Notice the photos are not time stamped. Notice also that the lighting looks very different. Cloudy vs clear? Or, early morning vs noon?
I live in the DC area. It was a gloomy & soggy day by noon, with even Trump saying that if he walked in the rain after Inauguration it would prove that his hair was real. Also, the article itself said that it was too cloudy for satellite photos. The Trump photo is too clear to be taken at noon on Inauguration Day. The lie is that those photos were taken at different times of day & thus are not equivalent.
It is depressing that the first option is in the lead. The premise is absurd. The media may be trying to defeat him, but they can't. Only HE can now. If his narcissism keeps leading him to snap back at every slight, now that he is president this means those who slight him have the initiative. As president, he is in charge of what issues get discussed and contested and how those issues get framed. He is wasting his energy fighting as if others still control that framing. He does. He should use it to fight the battles HE deems worthy, not what the media deems worthy. That's why No. 3 ought to be the correct choice.
Spicer's comments also sound defensible. How can anyone know how many people around the globe watched in person, on TV and Internet?
Umm, no. His statement was one of absolute certainty.
rhhardin said...
"Trump keeps the media looking like morons."
Seriously, what planet do you live on?? LOL. Trump is most definitely not making the media look like morons. It is quite obviously the other way around. Alternative facts?
wwww said... [hush][hide comment]
It's going to be a long and exhausting four years. Trump does live him some drama.
People don't like exhausting drama from the President. We've got families, jobs, friends, kids -- we've got enough stuff going on in our own lives. We're busy and many of us don't want or need drama from the President.
Easy to avoid. Don't read about it and don't watch it.
Blogger rhhardin said...
Trump keeps the media looking like morons.
Don't forget folks like ____. They are doing a pretty good job of not hearing what was actually said, calling something that was never said a lie and looking like morons themselves.
I remember an interview some years ago with Jon Lovitz. He had made a name with is lying on SNL and "Yeah, that's the ticket". In the interview he talked about how sometimes he would, just for grins, say something true but in a manner that made it sound like a lie.
I wonder if that is what Spicer was doing in the Presser? Just playing the press knowing that if he made a truthful statement in a certain way the press would think it was a lie and get all spun up.
It worked beautifully.
But I may be overthinking this. I believe the press is really just this stupid.
John Henry
I think Trump should hit back. The press is out to get him - they've said so and we know how Bush and Romney were damaged by letting the media pretend they were being fair.
Another thing. The media both here and in England have this new tactic where they keep after the person they are interviewing and saying: "You haven't answered the question." Nothing wrong with that in a way - but they never did it with Obama or Hillary and still don't with any Soros-approved candidate. They've gone from puffball questioning "What is your favorite color?" to police interrogation for anyone on the right. And it happened here and in Europe at the same time.
So I think Trump realized he's at war and he's ready to war every day and he's moving fast. We are just trudging along in Patton's wake trying to keep up.
And the big question we should ask is: when is the Democratic party going to do something about jobs for workers?
And: Do you think the left clings to bitter Trump hatred because they don't want to talk or think about how they hate the workers?
Do you think the left clings to bitter Trump hatred because they don't want to talk or think about how they hate the workers?
No.
Trump couldn't care less about the workers. If you are a worker who voted for him because you think he will make your life better, you are a fool.
Freder, CNN can look at their server logs and see that 16mm people were watching online. Other online outlets can do the same.
Cable knows who is watching what. Or at least who has the TV tuned to something.
Broadcast TV relies on Neilson which is less accurate. Still accurate enough that advertisers get charged according to their numbers, though.
So far it looks like it might have been, combining all streams, the most watched inaugural ever.
John Henry
Matt: "Seriously, what planet do you live on?? LOL. Trump is most definitely not making the media look like morons. It is quite obviously the other way around. Alternative facts?"
Trump has NO path to 270 electoral votes.
John Henry,
I was mistaken. Spicer's totals were 720,000. The Metro riders were 420,000 but those weren't in addition to the 720,000 as I had initially thought, but an alternative way of estimating in person audience.
So Spicer said 720,000 people were in the in-person audience.
Does anyone corroborate this estimate?
@Chuck -- if you can refute my analysis, then do so. Deflecting and then trying to assign me "homework" is weak tea. I gladly note that your link is to the favorite newspaper of Vichy Republicans everywhere -- the New York Times. Lulz
The question is, what is the meaning of "both in person and around the globe"?
The press thinks they know for sure and are the final arbiter of any disputes.
Freder: "Trump couldn't care less about the workers. If you are a worker who voted for him because you think he will make your life better, you are a fool."
Lol
The Marxists just love workers....
YoungHegelian
You want timestamp photos?
Read this link.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/21/14347298/trump-inauguration-crowd-size
And this link, which is more accurate about the time.
http://www.snopes.com/trump-inauguration-viewership/
There was ONE photographer on the Washington monument who took the photo comparing the two crowds; Reuters News Pictures staff photographer Lucas Jackson. And he took the photo at 12:01:18 p.m. on Friday and not much earlier as many people are trying to claim.
So the photo of Trump's crowd was taken later than the one of Obama's crowd. Later, as in closer to the event of the inauguration when the most people would be there. Please can you just admit that Obama's inauguration had more people in attendance? This doesn't mean he is a better president or a better person or whatever. It just means that not everything Trump believes is gospel truth.
Wildswan,
Thanks for reminding me.
Add to my list above:
Kroger announced that it would fill 10,000 jobs that it had left vacant
Foxconn announced another $7bn investment to make displays in the US. This on top of a $50bn announcement last month
Add all the other investments that have been announced.
My clients are telling me that this year is looking like this year is going to be crazy for them. In a good way. More business than they can handle. (Unless they hire me to help unlock wasted capacity, of course)
I am feeling positively olympian! Me and Jimmy Cliff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrHxhQPOO2c
I didn't watch, but what are the fake photos Rush is talking about-- previous ones? This whole thing is trivial except for a thin skinned person who believes everything attached to his person is huge.
Fabi said...
@Chuck -- if you can refute my analysis, then do so. Deflecting and then trying to assign me "homework" is weak tea. I gladly note that your link is to the favorite newspaper of Vichy Republicans everywhere -- the New York Times. Lulz
Keep up with the rest of the class, Fabi. Don't be so stupid. I submitted to you that New York times comparison photo, because that is what apparently kicked off the story-within-the story. Rush, in Althouse's block quote, talked about "the media" (it's always "the media" with Rush; he really ought to be more specific but it blunts his point if he does that) doing side-by-side comparison photos. Well that's what I supplied to you. You're welcome.
So THAT is why the NYT link was provided. Shheeeeesh!
You can try and justify your "assignment" any way you choose, Chuckles, but it doesn't compel me to accept it. Don't have the sadz, sweetie.
Jon Burack: He is wasting his energy fighting as if others still control that framing. He does. He should use it to fight the battles HE deems worthy, not what the media deems worthy. That's why No. 3 ought to be the correct choice.
I direct you to John Henry's comment @6:12 PM.
roesch/voltaire said...
I didn't watch, but what are the fake photos Rush is talking about-- previous ones? This whole thing is trivial except for a thin skinned person who believes everything attached to his person is huge.
Rush was talking about a NY Times online story. And I supplied "Fabi" with the link to the story up above. But Fabi won't look at it, because the Times, it seems, is part of the drive-by media that Fabi rejects. No matter, that it is nothing but a substantive starting point for the underlying story.
This is the sort of mindless TeaBag mentality that is overwhelming Trumpworld. They can't look at a NY Times story, even if it is in the service of merely understanding something that Rush was schooling them on earlier in the day.
And in this case, it is such a short piece; just a few paragraphs. And what I asked of Fabi was to check and see of there were any incorrect "absolute declarations" in the story that got Rush's knickers in a twist. And even that, was simply in response to Fabi's wanting to give Sean Spicer a break, because he didn't actually make any "absolute declarations."
See what we're up against, trying to have a cogent discussion in Trumpkinland?
Easy to avoid. Don't read about it and don't watch it.
That's the plan. Will only watch if it's of national importance. If it's just drama, will disengage.
Bob Ellison said...
Extremism in the opposition of fascism is no vice.
************
Yeah, wanting to reduce the size and pervasive power of government.....that's fascism, straight up.
Snort!
The bottom line is press secretaries ALWAYS spin the facts to make their boss look good. Obama's press secretaries did this all the time. I was an Obama supporter but even I couldn't watch them with a straight face. I knew they were spinning facts. I would hope Trump supporters too would look with some skepticism at Trump's press secretary as well.
I didn't quote Spicer, Chuckles -- I quoted Trump. Do try to keep up, rather than spending hundreds of words in a failed attempt at insult and tearing down your own strawman.
Deep breaths, Chuck.
It seems to me that discussion, of whatever quality, is no longer possible.
It is two sides, entrenched, irreconcilable.
All thats left is war, cold or hot.
The cold war will just yield different flavors and manifestations of hostility, interesting to conflict geeks.
Many people do not understand a major factor in Trump's "punching back" at the distortions and uppity tone of the MSM.
Spicer started to talk about it today. Trump said "I will fight for you, the forgotten men and women." Trump is not just punching back because it is some sort of blow to his ego--he is righteously pissed that the everyday person that fought with and for him for almost two years--many of which gave up time and money to attend the Inaugural--were essentially being erased by the MSM. This is what infuriated him--the unrelenting lack of respect for the common person.
I think he is sick of the dick fight between the MSM and the GOP, which in every case, whether it is the MSM or the GOP, leaves them swinging at each other and misses both of their alleged intended audiences. Hence the plea from so many for him to continue to use Twitter and hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
If you people will please, oh please, refrain from talking about the PURPLE ELEPHANT it would be greatly appreciated.
--Team Trump
“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe.”
That is what Spicer said. What Chuck Todd chose to ignore was the part after the 2nd comma (i.e., "..., both in person and around the globe.”)
I find it quite appropriate that a guy from NBC, who cannot seem to recall the color of the modern communications technology bus that ran him over, is so completely ignorant of how people view live events these days that he thinks that clause has no meaning and the only audience can be the folks standing on the ground in DC. Streaming vide access has taken off so much in the time since Obama's 1st inaugural that I would find it plausible that the total audience of Trump's was 2x or more that of Obama in 2009.
pollcode.com neither shows the vote tally (which I saw a few hours ago) nor lets me vote. Sorry! You already voted, you silly right-winger!
Matt: "I knew they were spinning facts."
This sentence cannot be forced to make sense. This is the sort of thing Trump is fighting.
The life-long Republican uses the word teabag. If that is not a reliable tell that he is a moby, I've never seen one.
Trump is brilliant, he keeps "gaslighting" the media. While they are hair on fire discussing inaugural turnout numbers he's signing ex-orders, bombing ISIS and being dry humped by corporate executives and the Democratic union base. All while it's the media that looks petty.
Back about the time he was finishing off the Republican field in the Primaries, I gave up thinking I know what Trump should and shouldn't do.
To Emil Baltz, and anyone else who cares to weigh in...
What is the proof, that Trump's inaugural audience "was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration"?
Please be specific and include your source(s) of information.
The in-person audience for Trump was smaller, by all accounts including Sean Spicer's own admission today. TV ratings for Trump were smaller, according to Nielsen:
http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/inauguration-ratings.jpg
So where does the extra audience come from, and what are the metrics for determining that?
Snopes -- drink!
"This is the sort of mindless TeaBag mentality..."
The Tea Party stood for fiscal restraint, limited goverment, and constitutional order. "TeaBag" is an insult; you must know this.
Part of it is that he has to fight back. Bush II never did and decided at some point history would vindicate him. Well, maybe, but he got crucified in the present.
Bush's people were exceedingly frustrated by this. I remember seeing an interview with Dana Perino where she related Bush directing them not to respond to criticisms that were grossly unfair or even flatly untrue. I think he believed it diminished the office to respond to every attack, and reading between the lines I'd say his people felt he was preventing them from doing their jobs. This was particularly true with McClellan's memoir.
...describing what Trump is doing, and I find it pretty plausible (despite NG getting 'played' himself by Clinton, he's a smart guy).
I think it was Kevin Williamson who proposed the Republicans should lock Gingrich in a basement somewhere and write down everything he says, mining the continuous vein of ridiculous proposals for the rare nuggets of genius.
Could the Trump people be playing a deeper game? Here are the facts Spicer set forth Saturday:
"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."
Observe that those numbers add up to 720,000. He then said that all of this space was full when Trump took the oath. The counter-claim is that those spaces weren't full as compared to the Obama 2009 inauguration where they were much fuller and attendance has long been reported to be 1.8 million. But that's in the same space that Spicer says only holds 720,000.
Now, crowd-counters are being employed and the NYT is reporting:
"The number of people on the National Mall is typically a fraction of the total crowd that gathers for a presidential inauguration. In 2009, for example, about 460,000 of the estimated 1.8 million people who attended President Obama’s inauguration were on the National Mall."
So Trump's people took a few hits and knocked 1.34 million off President Obama's historic attendance numbers. Was it worth it? Probably more enjoyable than the golden shower.
Many people are too well brought-up to realize when some less-genteel guy is fucking with them. A little playground experience in one of the less-fashionable neighborhoods would teach them a lot, and early.
Jack Wayne: "The life-long Republican uses the word teabag. If that is not a reliable tell that he is a moby, I've never seen one."
Indeed.
Jack Wayne and Drago:
It is not the first use of TeaBag(ger) by Chuck.
Now, can we please quit chattering about the PURPLE ELEPHANT? The Trump Administration has asked nicely
The last time there was a counting controversy, the Press undercounted the number and misrepresented the motives of millions of Americans who peacefully gathered and protested progressive corruption and Obama's liberal fiscal policies, then left the grounds a cleaner, greener place.
Although it "seems" that he should ignore it all, who am I to say he should/should not. The media is openly, admittedly trying to defeat trump and his administration. That is FACT.
That he decides to belittle, degrade and diminish them at every opportunity sounds like street fighting to me.
The media will NEVER give him the benefit of the doubt, so why care about them at all.
n.n.:
And John Lewis lied back then too.
Meanwhile, Trump is calling inequitable trade to the foreground, auditing anthropogenic government bloat, and withdrawing funds from abortion advocates, which will, hopefully, mean that the mainstream left will close its abortion chambers and Mengele operations once and finally.
Blogger Chuck said...
So where does the extra audience come from, and what are the metrics for determining that?
The extra audience comes from online.
The metric is server logs and it way more accurate than nielson.
CNN alone had over 16,000,000 online viewers in addition to TV/Cable
CNN is just one of hundreds of online outlets, big and small, around the world.
John Henry
@Matt,
You want timestamp photos?
Do you actually intend to follow shit through, Matt, or do you just like posting talking points?
The guy from Reuters says that they had the only photographer in the Washington Monument to take those photos. He then links to the photographers FB page.
The photographer detests Trump!
Here is the link, Matt/ You expect us to fucking believe this guy?
Birkel:
I did not know that. The Press lost credibility with the undercount and malicious misrepresentation of motives, and the rest of the DNC came tumbling after, which may have been a first-order cause of Water Closet where Deep Plunger exposed rampant [class] diversity at the DNC and left egg all over the media's collective face.
I watched C-SPAN online.
Has C-SPAN posted numbers...
Off to Bing some results...
n.n.:
Lewis claimed racial epithets were yelled by Tea Party attendees. It was a demonstrable lie.
Here is Nielsen reporting:
https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/trump-inauguration-ratings-second-biggest-222037803.html
Blogger mccullough said...
So Spicer said 720,000 people were in the in-person audience.
Does anyone corroborate this estimate?
Sounds like what I remember him saying if you added up the 3 blocks/groups he mentioned at the presser.
More importantly, does anyone dispute it?
So what did he lie about, then? Why all the hullaballoo?
John Henry
After football practice, no one wanted to shower next to the black guys because......well....size, and the NYT wants to remind us.
"The Tea Party stood for fiscal restraint, limited government, and constitutional order."
Yep. All the things "life long Republican" chuck swears he favors. Then he wonders why people doubt him.
I guess the Tea Party people just weren't his kind. Most of them didn't even go to law school.
The hullabaloo is about the PURPLE ELEPHANT that must not be mentioned, as per the Trump Administration.
Trump is controlling the 24 hour news cycle. He is jerking the press along by its ear. And the MSM cannot resist his entreaties.
(Do people understand the PURPLE ELEPHANT reference?)
Actually Birkel, I have to admit I'm not quite sure about the PURPLE ELEPHANT reference.
Thanks for the link, Heyboom,
So nielson is saying 30.6mm tv/cable viewers. Obama had 37.8mm in 09.
But add CNN with 16mm viewers and Trump is at 47mm. Plus all the other online. Too lazy to go look now but let's say 10mm. (That's probably low)Let's add 1mm more at the mall. (In round numbers) That puts President Trump at about 58mm around the world and in person.
8 years ago not as many people were online. But it was a historic event so maybe a higher percentage watched. Obama had 1.8mm in person plus 38mm on TV. Call it 40mm to President Trump's 58mm. Were there enough people watching online in 09 to make up the 18mm difference for Obama?
I don't know and it is too late for me to go look tonight.
I do think it is plausible that 17 was seen by more people than 09. Which was what Spicer said Saturday.
But perhaps I am just talking out my ass. We'll have to wait for someone with good access to all the numbers.
John Henry
Birkel,
I think the purple elephant is the distraction from the various things I mentioned that happened today and Saturday.
Is that what you had in mind?
That would explain why Kellyanne Conway kept Chuck Todd talking for 10 minutes about the crowd size instead of other, more momentous, stuff.
John Henry
heyboom:
There is a standard way to show people the power of suggestion. You gain their rapt attention and then command them NOT to think of a pink elephant. Everybody does. Every time. Always. It is unavoidable the first time.
Trump is Br'er Rabbitting the hell out of the press. He begs them not to throw him in the briar patch he has selected. If that reference works better, it means the same thing.
How many angels would trade places with the pinhead? Show your work.
EXAMPLE:
Trump have a speech in which he mentioned three numbers in reference to the same statistic. 25. 30. 35.
All the press could talk about was how the smaller - and quite negative - number was the correct one. They gave him the number and acted like it was his loose speech that was the problem.
To everyman listeners, the problem was not Trump's loose numbers, but the absolute negative of the number itself and the press ignoring the negative of the number to those same everymen. The message was that Trump cared and Hillary and the MSM did not.
Ask me how he won downscale blue collar workers...
exiledonmainstreet said...
"The Tea Party stood for fiscal restraint, limited government, and constitutional order."
LOL! I was going to say, "All of the things we need to worry about very much, with Donald Trump!"
Not saying Trump can't do it. It's quite possible, that with a good cabinet and a functioning Congress as led by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan (and a big senate win in '18), we could do some good things. Just hope Trump won't screw it up.
Washington DC voted 90%+ for Obama, and he was The First Black President.
So of course he got huge turnout, not counting whomever they bused in.
Trump got 4% of the DC vote; I'm impressed as many people did show up in person.
The Inauguration Episode of the Trump Reality TV Presidency had a larger virtual audience than any inauguration ever. That's probably more historically important, but the MSM would prefer you look elsewhere. Smothering stories and redirecting your attention is what they do.
Trump, Spicer and Conway are right to engage the MSM in a big stupid stinky crapfight, so the new Administration can go about its business with less scrutiny. Same tactic, different team.
rhhardin makes the same reference I am making. He calls it soap opera. It is the effort of the press to control the narrative.
Trump is inside their OODA loop. He may as be riding on their wing, Fright Night style.
Chuck won't address his use of the slur "teabag", but serves up still another tu quoque in a hollow effort to slam Trump.
Unexpectedly.
Sorry.
Twilight Zone style.
@Birkel -- I concur with your OODA loop assessment. Pundits, bloggers, commenters and the like are so desperate for a "gotcha" that they're spending most of their time and energy in Trump-designed rabbit holes. I don't think they'll ever be able to avoid the bait -- to the detriment of their own sanity and efficacy.
exiledonmainstreet: ""The Tea Party stood for fiscal restraint, limited government, and constitutional order."
Yep. All the things "life long Republican" chuck swears he favors. Then he wonders why people doubt him.
I guess the Tea Party people just weren't his kind. Most of them didn't even go to law school."
Vichy Chuck, a "lifelong republican" and lawyer extraordinaire, has a visceral dislike for the Tea Party, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, most of the Fox lineup all the while displaying an interesting strong like for links to Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, the New York Times, Snopes, WaPo "fact checkers", and basically any MSM individual attacking the republicans/Trump.
Vichy Chuck was blissfully unaware of the lawfare conducted against Sarah Palin (whom he also attacked).
Vichy Chuck is also very upset about Trumps communications habits which allow Trump to circumvent the MSM filter.
But Vichy Chuck wants you to know he is very very very excited about the possibilities for republicans once they regain their status as a permanent minority party.
Hmmmmmmmm.
Further, Vichy Chuck is not saying there are Jews under the floorboards but, wink wink, (there are Jews under the floorboards......)
Seriously, what planet do you live on??
Don't know about you, but I live on the planet where these very same tactics by Trump got him elected to the White House, making the media that said he couldn't win look like morons.
I didn't expect that. But then I learned, on election night, that my evaluation was wrong. Empirical reality contradicted my judgment, and I updated to reflect what it said.
When will you adjust your beliefs to match the reality that Trump successfully played the media, and the media is so stupid it's still falling for it after it got him elected President?
To Whom (Chuck) It May Concern:
"What is the proof, that Trump's inaugural audience "was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration"?
Please be specific and include your source(s) of information."
"Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.
And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams...Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well."
Source: Entertainment Weekly
How much does the empire pay you to reflexively defend their lies like this?
Oh, and I see you have no evidence to support Fatso's claim that the pictures were "phony?"
Wonderful.
Why don't you just call yourself "Trump's Unpaid Astro-Turfer?"
Some bloggers at least bother to have a reason for what they'd support or deny. But you've basically decided you're going to be an empty, human re-tweeting machine that just happens to throw in a blow-hard like Limbaugh into the mix. You know, for extra credibility.
Ridiculous.
Trump has a screw loose. It's being reported that in his private, off the record meeting with congressional leaders Trump went off on how he would have won the popular vote but for the 3 million votes from aliens (and I think he said they were all illegal aliens). The sooner they can confirm all his cabinet appointees the sooner the government will be in sane hands.
I was able to watch the inauguration of Truman, Kennedy and Johnson on a streaming network and paid attention to the crowd size etc. The most startling one was LBJ's.
He took the oath behind an oversized bullet proof glass screen (understandable given the circumstances). Afterwards they showed him drive down Pennsylvania ave. in an enclosed bullet proof Lincoln and then into an enclosed bullet proof reviewing stand. As the parade grinded on you could see the crowds surrounding this stand kind of drift away. As each state paraded a float by the stands you could see the sun set and it got darker until all you could see was Johnson, Humphrey and other functionaries in a lit enclosure surrounded by empty stands as the last of the parade went by.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/?sr=twCNN012117trump-inauguration-gigapixel0148PMVODtopLink&linkId=33636990
Obviously CNN doctored the above panorama to help Trump.
Now you must avoid talking about the PURPLE ELEPHANT. It is imperative. It will hurt Trump of you focus on crowd sizes. Please do not. Please?
readering: "It's being reported that in his private, off the record meeting with congressional leaders..."
Can you spot the problem?
Readering is even taking the off-the-record bait. This is fun -- squirrel!
"The sooner they can confirm all his cabinet appointees the sooner the government will be in sane hands."
Mad Dog Mattis will save us from Krazee Trump.
One rumor I have not heard yet is that Trump is controlled by the krazee wife. She's Slovenian, isn't she? Uh-oh.
DJT has his Gladiator Street Cred to protect.
And who would have elected Andrew Jackson (who actually won the Presidency three times, although #1 was totally Rigged), if Old Hickory had Just surrendered New Orleans and the Mississippi River Basin, I.e., the Middle of North America to the same World Empireof Europeans who want to get it all surrendered to them now?
And as to the latest battle ground, Rush has it 100% figured out.
Readering,
So right. They need to wrap him up in some lambs wool and put him in a room somewhere he can amuse himself. The man is a menace.
@CC,
Oh, and I see you have no evidence to support Fatso's claim that the pictures were "phony?"
Well, if you'd actually been following the thread, you'd see that Reuters' claims that the photos of the two inaugurations were taken at the same time of day depends on (wait for it..)
One photographer's word.
One guy. Who hates Trump. Publicly. On the FB page that his own stupid employer linked to.
That's it. That's all the folks who claim the two photos were taken at the same time have to stand on.
And now, there's the CNN panoramic posted by Birkel, & that seems to be telling a very different story.
My take: 1) Reuters photog passes off fake photos to go with "small inaugural crowd" narrative. 2) Photog gets busted. 3) Photog, realizing that there are absolutely no other sources other than him that know the origin of that photo, lies through his teeth to save his job. It sure explains the phenomena.
You left out
"The media are trying to defeat him, and WE should be relentless."
This isn't just Trump's fight. The lying dogs of the Left-Wing media are on the ropes. The internet has put them there. First it took over their main source of income, advertising. Then it eliminated most of their second source of income, subscriptions. Now their credibility is in tatters, and they are clinging by their fingernails to their self-assigned role as the arbiters of fact - "the first draft of history". Clinging bitterly, I might add. They are down, but not quite out. We need to jump up and down on those trembling fingertips. Scream "Liar!" in their faces, every time they open their stinking mouths.
Rush is right. Democrat party members and buggy-whip mediate attempting to curate the "news". Don't let them. Punch back thrice as hard.
Commander Crankshaft : all-snot, no content , 24/7.
I don't do polls; polls are bullshit. Fake bullshit.
But...
I am thinking of selling bullets again. The time is ripe! Anybody interested?
Use 'em, trade 'em, make 'em into pussy hats. Whatever you want.
Bargain special prices! Today only!
"Todd, Stephanopolous, and 2/3rds of all the other reporters should be called out as the previously employed by democrat hacks they are."
2/3rds?
The point is true, and the money these people make is scandalous. They should buy my bullets and let their money do the talking.
Instead, they let their talking do the killing.
Matt said: "Trump is a big cry baby. "
Hmmm... maybe you're just mixed up about crying v. fighting back.
Easy mistake for the left since it's the same thing in your world.
All these assholey democrat party sockpuppets are making me long for the days of earnest progressive dopes like Garage Mahal.
"A few examples... From the Times... From the Washington Post... From Politico..."
Oh shit. That's that then, eh?
Wait. No Pravda?
Lots of leaking from the White House. Sounds like a dysfunctional family.
"The Trump White House not only leaks like crazy. It casually leaks the most intimate and humiliating details about the President - hurt feelings, ego injury, childlike behavior, self-destructive rages over tweets, media failure to credit his own grandiosity. We have simply never seen this level of leaking, with this little respect for the President's dignity or reputation, this early.
A few examples. From the Times ...
Mr. Trump grew increasingly angry on Inauguration Day after reading a series of Twitter messages pointing out that the size of his inaugural crowd did not rival that of Mr. Obama’s in 2009. But he spent his Friday night in a whirlwind of celebration and affirmation. When he awoke on Saturday morning, after his first night in the Executive Mansion, the glow was gone, several people close to him said, and the new president was filled anew with a sense of injury.
From The Post ...
Trump has been resentful, even furious, at what he views as the media’s failure to reflect the magnitude of his achievements, and he feels demoralized that the public’s perception of his presidency so far does not necessarily align with his own sense of accomplishment.
From Politico ...
One person who frequently talks to Trump said aides have to push back privately against his worst impulses in the White House, like the news conference idea, and have to control information that may infuriate him. He gets bored and likes to watch TV, this person said, so it is important to minimize that."
Pravda wouldn't be reporting the bad stuff, they adore Trump in Russia.
HenryB is Inga.
Lewis Wetzel is Terry.
Trump blew up the Repub establishment when he won the primary. He blew up the Dem establishment when he won the general. He is taking out the media with carpet bombing and surgical strikes.
Another thought... it reminds me a little of this little scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynKoZD-sFi4
Blogger Chuck said...
exiledonmainstreet said...
"The Tea Party stood for fiscal restraint, limited government, and constitutional order."
"LOL! I was going to say, "All of the things we need to worry about very much, with Donald Trump!"
Not saying Trump can't do it. It's quite possible, that with a good cabinet and a functioning Congress as led by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan (and a big senate win in '18), we could do some good things. Just hope Trump won't screw it up."
You are no conservative. Fuck you and your teabag bullshit. You are a disingenuous person.
Bush took a republican majority in both chambers and passed a new entitlement. That is why we kicked all you people out.
Thanks Birkel, I was not onto that but it's all clear now.
"Pravda wouldn't be reporting the bad stuff, they adore Trump in Russia."
Well, of course. They have more flexibility now.
"Fuck you and your teabag bullshit."
ooooohhh... it's a good time for a purge, eh comrade?
first we kill the kulaks. fine, no problem. but our real enemy is the Trotskyites. Who's got an ice pick handy?
The media doesn't know whether to shit or go blind.
Their tweets on Spicer not following some fucking tradition of choosing an AP reporter for the first question at a presser has them all aflutter.
These status queens are going to learn what the back of the bus looks like.
You are no conservative. Fuck you and your teabag bullshit.
I didn't believe it when John Wayne first pointed this I out, so I did a word search and, sure enough, there is old "Lifelong Republican Chuck" using the worse slur that can be tossed at a Republican or conservative.
He's been outed past all doubt now and has moved from my scroll slowly pass to ignoring all together.
"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.”
Depends on what the meaning of "both" is...
My only question is who to team up with first before turning on them later.
Selling bullets is hard!
Yeah. If they are counting online... they may have something. This is the first inauguration I ever saw; I watched it online. Then I sat down and watched it again with my kids (ages 9 and 5) later that night. My husband was watching as well, at a different location, with a group of coworkers, I discovered.
My son is a 4th grader, just like Barron. Ivanka packing with her daughter reminded me of me and my daughter. I almost didn't vote for Trump; I did it for my husband, who wanted me. He has exceeded my expectations so far but we still have a long time to go.
The left is losing it. They have no credibility left. They said that trump had no path to 270.
You are all liars. You are dishonest to yourselves as well as others. We are not going to let you back into power. There will be election reform and all of your illegal voters will not be counted anymore.
I expect more violence from you people. Please keep it up. Eventually they will turn us loose on you.
"These status queens are going to learn what the back of the bus looks like."
Take pictures, please. Get the lines lined up straight, make sure there's color splattered around here and there, and throw in some cute little animals. If you got some pit bulls around somewhere handy, that'd be great. Populism rocks!
Then, next, kill all the people wearing glasses! ... 'cause they're smarter than us regular folks. They can read! And they're richer too! One of those is surely a capital crime. Obviously.
OK, OK. Re-ed camps first maybe. Then kill 'em.
Kill 'em all.
Bullets for sale.
"Eventually they will turn us loose on you."
They, us, and you.
Perfesser, I'm sorry, but I'm confused. Please parse with your sherlockian word ciphering skills. Who's who?
Who whom?
Blogger Henry8 said...
Lewis Wetzel is Terry.
1/23/17, 10:52 PM
True.
Trump has people paid to hit back for him, so it isn't a distraction from the job at hand. They should hit back at every opportunity. Never relent since it will do nothing to mollify his enemies.
Freder: Trump couldn't care less about the workers. If you are a worker who voted for him because you think he will make your life better, you are a fool.
That is so leftist propaganda. Only they can worry about the common man. But their leadership really doesn't give a damn about the working man, except to pose as their leaders every election. The reason that this was funny is that Freder is exactly wrong, in the way that leftists inevitably are. They think that capitalists are the enemy of the working class. But that is not the case. There is the famous case of Nancy Reagan calling SS agents (I think) by name. The outgoing First Lady was surprised - the Carters didn't know their names after 4 years in the WH, and the Reagans did at their inauguration. While Crooked Hillary was known for browbeating staff (including SS - and apparently had junior level agents to protect her at State, because senior agents refused to work with her), the Bushes were known for making the WH staff and SS their extended family, hosting Christmas parties every year for staff and family. GW Bush apparently knew them all by name, as well as often knowing the names of spouses and children. Which brings us to Trump. I listened to the thank you speech that he gave the day after the convention. And, there, it wasn't just, or primarily, the high level political operatives and politicians, but the working people whom he called out and thanked: the carpenters who built the set, the police, SS, etc who protected him, on and on. Maybe it is all a big fake, but if it is, it is far more credible than Dem President or Presidential candidate has done over the last 60 years. It was striking, esp in view of Freder's and the rest of the left's view that they are the only ones who can represent the working man.
To me, part of the reason that this is so humorous is that the Dems and their MSM lackeys don't seem to know what is going on. While everyone is looking at one hand, they aren't watching what the magician is doing with his other hand, or, in this case probably, hands. In the Senate, a number of Trump's major cabinet nominees have sailed through their confirmation hearings, including some quite controversial ones. With Dingy Harry having invoked the Nuclear Option, the Dems there are going to have a big problem stopping most of them, despite almost retaking the Senate. Their Head Clown, Schumer, was maybe caught lying, in the process. Meanwhile Trump issued executive orders to rescind parts of Obamacare and pulled us out of the TPP. The U.K. and Israel have been brought in close, with their leaders scheduled to visit in the next month or so, reestablishing them as key allies. Also talking to Mexican and Canadian leaders, and scheduling to meet with them. Also laid down markers at the CIA, with his visit there - he respects their work, but cross or sabotage him, and he will destroy them. All in the first 4 days in office. Instead, the MSM has us concentrating on the million women march and crowd estimates.
The reality seems to be that the MSM and their news cycles just can't keep up with Trump and his people. To some extent, he is inside their OODA loop. I expect major regulatory reform, ObamaCare reform, and tax reform, possibly up to eliminating corporate taxes completely, all in short order. Along with confirmation of most of his high level nominations. I also expect a SCOTUS nomination, along with upwards of 100 more judicial picks. Probably all while the MSM is still talking about crowd size and how many people viewed the inauguration. Or some other essentially meaningless dispute. They can't concentrate on what he is doing substantially, because he keeps them mired in trivial conflicts on other subjects. Expect to hear more today about how his press secretary shook up the world order by not calling the AP first today at his press conference, and giving priority to the major networks. Meanwhile, in the real world...
We'll see how Trump does but I'm already exhausted.
And I am increasingly energized … by a POTUS who does not docilely and mutely allow fake news bullshit to be flung at him without response. I guess that’s because I just LOVE to see the MSM exposed by Trump as the lying, partisan, fake news whores they are.
I wonder:
How many folks stayed away because they were afraid of the violent anti-Trump protesters who were just a few blocks from the mall?
How many folks tried but could not attend because of traffic snarls created by the violent anti-Trump protesters who were just a few blocks from the mall?
How many of the folks attending Obama’s inaugurations were federal civil service employees?
How many folks attending President Trump’s inauguration were NOT federal civil service employees?
The short-term goal is to scare the Republicans in Congress into refusing to support Trump's policies/appointments, longer term to energize the Democrat base …
BINGO!! This player wins a brand new GE toaster!
Trump has a screw loose. It's being reported …
and
A few examples. From the Times ... From The Post … From Politico …
Yes. Fake news is “being reported” constantly, with fake “examples,” and other bullshit. All three venues are fake news champions, tried and untrue. Thanx fer pointing that out for us.
Some more thoughts, maybe at a meta level.
Trump has been accused of growing up with a golden spoon in his mouth. But the reality is that he made his billions, several million at a time, in one of the hardest markets in the country - the NYC real estate market. One of the things that he became very good at, thanks to decades of practice and a lot of hard work, was getting projects done, on time, and often under budget. A bunch of balls in the air at one time, and hundreds of moving parts, that all have to come together the right way. He got good at this with a lot of hard work over the decades, plus being fairly bright. I sure couldn't have done it in his shoes, despite probably out scoring him on the SATs. Not even close.
In contrast to the NYC real estate market, DC is still a slow southern city at heart, esp with someone as lazy and hedonistic as Obama in the WH. Legislation often takes years to meander through Congress, allowing all of them of the lobbyists and cronies to get their piece of the action. Regulations too often take years to promulgate. This is what the MSM is used to dealing with. Trump is very good at doing a lot of things at once. They aren't used to that, and they aren't institutionally set up to handle that sort of thing. He says "squirrel", and they all look, taking their eyes off of what is going on right in front of their eyes. With one or two day news cycles, how do they keep up with the dozen things that Trump is doing at the same time? They don't, esp, when he keeps yelling "squirrel", and they keep looking.
Time is money in his real estate business, and is just as important when trying to fundamentally change our government. As I noted, legislation often meanders through Congress for years, so that every lobbyist and crony can get their piece of the action. Which is why our tax code is so horrible. Special carve outs and provisions for every group, and higher rates for the rest of us to make up for it. Which is why, I think that both Obamacare reform and corporate tax reform are on the fast track - so that the lobbyists and cronies don't have enough time to gin up pressure to get their special provisions protected or implemented. And, like Reagan's Tax Reform, it has to be fairly comprehensive to work. And the faster things move, and the more distracted the populace is, the more likely that corn subsidies for ethonal and special tax provisions for Hollywood can be rolled back.
Finally, back to the election campaign. Looking back, I think that we can see this Trump dynamic at work there too. There were the semi-weekly scandals and excitement, ranging from the FBI investigating, exonerating, investigating, then again kinda exonerating Crooked Hillary, to Trump decades earlier talking about grabbing pussy, to the DNC and Podesta leaks/hacks, to the supposed Ruusian involvement. Etc. then there were the overflowing Trump rallies, sometimes in 3 or 4 states in one day. And meanwhile, while everyone was distracted, Jared Kusner and his data analytics allowed the campaign to micro target voters like never before. All at a small part of the money spent by his competitor. And, as if by magic, on election night, his improbable win. All the balls in the air came down where they were supposed to, the building was completed on time and under budget, and there were no missing support beams. He won, and the Clinton campaign wad still trying to figure out how he did it, overcoming their big advantages in money, MSM support, expertise, and registered (often illegal) voters.
Normally I'd say don't fight over every little thing. But given the fact that there's a whole lot of fake news out there -- see for example the DoE reports on student loans for the most recent example -- maybe we should push back on every little bit of it.
Trump was elected, in part, because "this man fights." I don't like super combative politics, but the left just had eight years of "reward our friends, punish our enemies" Obama. So, I imagine, despite it not being what I want, that the right is going to demand their pound of flesh. And, honestly, the media could use some humbling, so I'm not going to exert too much effort to say, "No. Stop. Don't pick on the people who lied about John McCain and Mitt Romney and then expected us to believe them when they called you, personally, a Nazi."
I'd rather polite politics, but I understand when one side finally says enough is enough, and starts to fight on the same level.
"Machiavelli might say best response would be to pick one carefully vetted target and destroy it completely as an example."
-- Hulk Hogan already did that.
I detest Trump, but I hope he keeps beating the shit out of the media. If you don't think people around the world aren't fascinated by Trump, you don't get out much. I was stopped at a routine traffic checkpoint in the middle of nowhere Ukraine this morning and as SOON as the policemen saw I was an American they started to ask about Trump.
Doing the same old WASP-above-it-all routine that served the Bushes and Romney so poorly isn't going to alter the media equation in this country. At the rate Trump is going, they could be completely irrelevant by the next presidential cycle. Do you think he is going to go for their bullshit debates now that he is Numero Uno? I don't think so, muchachos.
I rest comfortably knowing that when it comes to a gathering of people the important occurrence was on Election Day when more people trekked to the voting booth and selected President Donald Trump than his challenger. And those places where those votes counted a great deal... they're not just a quick drive down the road to Washington DC. And, I think, for most of those people... they know they already did the most important thing they could do... no need to go celebrating. On the left... those people, on the Election Day... they did not do enough, or they're compadres did not do enough... and they would do well to engage in some navel gazing on that point. But they won't, and their belly is full with malevolent spite and their own dark dreams.
".....and their belly is full with malevolent spite and their own dark dreams."
Sounds like you're describing the people who voted for Trump. They always seem so angry, calling for Trump to "burn it all down".
Great post on former journalist Don Surber's blog. I, and perhaps everyone else here including out hostess, seem to be missing what KC said about alternate facts.
They were not alternate facts about crowd size.
They were other facts that KC wanted to discuss:
CONWAY: Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What-- You're saying it's a falsehood. And they're giving Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that. But the point remains--
TODD: Wait a minute. Alternative facts?
Todd thought he had a gaffe. Watch what happened.
CONWAY: --that there's--
TODD: Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered, the one thing he got right--
CONWAY: --hey, Chuck, why-- Hey Chuck--
TODD: Four of the five facts he uttered were just not true. Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods.
Then she laid down her trump card.
CONWAY: Chuck, do you think it's a fact or not that millions of people have lost their plans or health insurance and their doctors under President Obama? Do you think it's a fact that everything we heard from these women yesterday happened on the watch of President Obama? He was president for eight years. Donald Trump's been here for about eight hours.
Do you think it's a fact that millions of women, 16.1 million women, as I stand here before you today, are in poverty along with their kids? Do you think it's a fact that millions don't have health care? Do you think it's a fact that we spent billions of dollars on education in the last eight years only to have millions of kids still stuck in schools that fail them every single day? These are the facts that I want the press corps to cover.
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/01/conway-tamed-chuck-todd.html
Now I'm going to have to go listen to the KC/Todd interview. Sounds like it might be even better than I thought.
John Henry
First: an assertion.
I assert that you may wish to talk about the fact that Trump's inauguration turnout was lacklustre, and that I may wish to talk about the fact that Trump's campaign rallies were huge. That you may have an agenda, and I that I may have another agenda. That you may want to push one story, and that I may wish to push an alternative story. That you might raise some facts to discuss, and that I might raise alternative facts to discuss."
Second: two question pairs of questions.
Q1. Is this a reasonable assertion, and is my diction reasonably expressing it?
Q2. Has the sense in which 'Kellyanne Conway' was using the phrase 'alternative facts' been established? Is it established?
No fair answering Q2 without first answering Q1.
First: an assertion.
I assert that you may wish to talk about the fact that Trump's inauguration turnout was lacklustre, and that I may wish to talk about the fact that Trump's campaign rallies were huge. That you may have an agenda, and I that I may have another agenda. That you may want to push one story, and that I may wish to push an alternative story. That you might raise some facts to discuss, and that I might raise alternative facts to discuss."
Second: two question pairs of questions.
Q1. Is this a reasonable assertion, and is my diction reasonably expressing it?
Q2. Has the sense in which 'Kellyanne Conway' was using the phrase 'alternative facts' been established? Is it established?
No fair answering Q2 without first answering Q1.
How about "yes he is unpopular, but he's always been unpopular and it doesn't matter because popularity has no effect right now"? The notion that the polls are so wrong that they're showing him in the 30s when he's really above 50 is absurd. The last election polls had Hillary up by 4, and she won by slightly more than 2, which is pretty close. If they'd showed her up by 20 and he won the popular vote, then there'd be something to that theory, but that's not the case.
So the media pushes this narrative. It obviously bothers Trump enough to lie about it and push this idea that the polls are off by so much that he's really, really popular. That's his own personal demon to work out, and Ann and Rush and the rest of Trump's fans can tell themselves whatever they want, but they're wasting their time. There's no election for two years, and none with Trump on the ballot for four. The GOP is far more concerned about the Trump fans than his opposition, and they have the votes to pass what they want now. If Trump fans should worry about anything, it's whether they can keep their majority in 2018 and be in shape for 2020.
If Trump fans wanted to make a smart argument they might point out that popularity is fleeting. Bush I was in the 90s back in 1991, and he was defeated the next year. Bush II was at about 50 in 2001 then shot to the 90s after 9/11, only to see that steadily erode until he won by a close margin in 2004. Four years after that, he was down in the 30s. These things change based on events and mood--there's no reason that Trump can't get his ratings up by the time it matters. Of course, going around trying to tell people they should buy into an alternate reality won't do it.
"They always seem so angry, calling for Trump to "burn it all down."
And yet it was the Trump protesters in DC who were actually lighting fires and smashing windows. The old biddy who kicked off a plane after she subjected a Trump voter to an extended tirade was the angry one. It's not Trump voters who have been having grand mal seizures and hissy fits because their candidate lost.
Vote total is no longer displaying on pollcode.com
John said...
Great post on former journalist Don Surber's blog. I, and perhaps everyone else here including out hostess, seem to be missing what KC said about alternate facts.
They were not alternate facts about crowd size.
They were other facts that KC wanted to discuss:
CONWAY: Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What-- You're saying it's a falsehood. And they're giving Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that. But the point remains--
TODD: Wait a minute. Alternative facts?
Todd thought he had a gaffe. Watch what happened.
CONWAY: --that there's--
TODD: Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered, the one thing he got right--
CONWAY: --hey, Chuck, why-- Hey Chuck--
TODD: Four of the five facts he uttered were just not true. Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods.
Then she laid down her trump card.
CONWAY: Chuck, do you think it's a fact or not that millions of people have lost their plans or health insurance and their doctors under President Obama? Do you think it's a fact that everything we heard from these women yesterday happened on the watch of President Obama? He was president for eight years. Donald Trump's been here for about eight hours.
Do you think it's a fact that millions of women, 16.1 million women, as I stand here before you today, are in poverty along with their kids? Do you think it's a fact that millions don't have health care? Do you think it's a fact that we spent billions of dollars on education in the last eight years only to have millions of kids still stuck in schools that fail them every single day? These are the facts that I want the press corps to cover.
1/24/17, 5:12 AM
Wow, John Henry, I read both of Althouse's transcriptions and posts about that exchange, and she never mentioned anything about Conway's excellent and biting reply which you highlighted. Again and again Althouse complained that Conway wasn't answering Cuck, or was being evasive. Guess Althouse missed that part of the conversation- maybe it was curated by the Madison democrat party media. Or maybe it was that cruel neutrality that she cruelly practices which always seem to be cruel to republican and conservatives only, and neutral to the despicable democrat party liars.
The entire Trump campaign seemed like a grand mal siezure. Trump's hurt feelings that the opposition isn't showing him enough adulation is laughable and pathetic simultaneously. It's laughable that he expects the Press to only report positive news about him is and seems infantile.
That the Trump voters and Trump himself expected the other side to simply lay down and be quiet is delusional. Of course there will be pushback. The right pushed back after Obama won two elections, why would anyone think the left won't do the same thing?
The left/the opposition, doesn't accept what Trump stands for in the most part. Some of his policies are acceptable and even lauded by the opposotion, like TPP, but the opposition is so disgusted by his displays of childishishness, petulance, churlishness, vengeful nature, his thin skin, his narcissism and his penchant for in your face llying (not even considering how easy it is to fact check) that acceptance of him won't be coming anytime soon. The right never accepted Obama, the left will never accept Trump, especially after the last few days, that sealed the deal. He is loathed, he is seen as illegitimate for several different reasons and he digs his hole deeper every time he speaks extemporaneously which allows people to clearly see what he is.
Brando:
YMMV but Rasmussen shows Trump over 50%.
Why should I believe the MSM or Rasmussen?
In which Sandy Kolfax admits the press is on the other side and will not pay down.
We already knew that.
P.S. Your edits still left many errors.
"Why should I believe the MSM or Rasmussen?"
You need to look at weighted averages of the polls and compare their accuracy from the election. Was Rasmussen more accurate than the weighted averages that had Hillary slightly ahead of Trump nationally (not a rhetorical question, I don't know what Rasmussen's last projection pre-election was)? If it was there's good reason to think they may have a better read.
But whether you think Trump is more popular now than the polls suggest, my basic point is that it doesn't matter right now. Popularity and unpopularity are fleeting.
Brando:
You, like a number of conservative NeverTrump folks, have not been listening to those of us who saw Trump as a third or fourth option and backed him because he was much better than Clinton. I am saying the polls run by the MSM right now cannot be fact checked by actual election results.
Look at the polls two weeks before the election. ABCNews had Clinton up twelve. 12. Tuh-Welve!! They were crafting a narrative with their results instead of trying to reflect reality. But they knew there was an election so there was "movement" toward Trump that reflected a zero percent chance of him winning but only a 4% lead for Clinton. That was meant to be within the margin of error but still set the narrative. And it was bull shit from top to bottom. It was a sophisticated, integrated lie.
Now those same agencies - with no election upcoming to prove the accuracy of their polling - are telling you a different set of lies. But they are known liars. They have declared sides and are openly working to sabotage this president.
And this president has been controlling the news cycle and tempting the press to cover minutiae. The press obliges because their malevolence is not matched with cunning or guile. They are dupes.
So you believe those polls all you want. I will note that Rasmussen did not contain the wild swings that the MSM did. I will note that the LATimes tracking poll did not have the wild swings either.
But don't pretend you don't know better.
Birkel, out of curiosity, what was Rasmussen's final pre-election poll? Was it closer to the 2% lead that Hillary ended up with than the weighted average of 4% was on the RCP poll? Again, not a rhetorical question, I didn't follow individual polls during the campaign, only the weighted averages.
Brando:
Do you understand that you are -- to observe the words you are typing -- missing my point? Mine is not rhetorical either.
"Do you understand that you are -- to observe the words you are typing -- missing my point? Mine is not rhetorical either."
I guess we're missing each other's points, as my original point wasn't that the polls are accurate (we're not going to agree on that) but that none of this matters right now.
And at the risk of misreading your point, I'm guessing it's that what Trump is focusing on (with this crowd size argument) is part of the good fight, and necessary? I guess if it keeps you and other Trump fans thrilled, then whatever floats your boat. But from the standpoint of those who reluctantly backed him rationalizing it as "there's a chance he might do something we want him to do" we're not into these minutiae. (Now, "who cares what you 'reluctants' think" may be your thought here, and that's fine, we're odd bedfellows, but considering how close 2016 was you may be wanting us in the fold come next election. Like it or not we're all on the same ship).
Brando:
Did you misunderstand that I am a Trump 'fan'? I'm resisting my normal schtick to have a legitimate conversation here and you ignore everything I type? But you persist with your NeverTrump nonsense and expect me to engage?
I'm relatively certain you can't adjust. So offer a single comment that signifies your willingness to engage or we can part ways.
" The right pushed back after Obama won two elections, why would anyone think the left won't do the same thing?"
I guess I must have missed the marches and the riots and the burning cars.
That the Trump voters and Trump himself expected the other side to simply lay down and be quiet is delusional.
If there is one thing that a Trump voter knows and expects is that the media is a bunch of lying political whores. We NEVER expected them to “be quiet.” If THAT is what you heard in regards to our media expectations then YOU are the “delusional” one.
We expect them to be shitty and they completely fulfill that expectation, every time. The MSM is boringly predictable in this regard.
Another delusion: That Trump and his supporters will stand by while their fucking lies are spread by the media. The Trump campaign should have dispelled all doubts on that score. Try to figure out reality – it’s almost as much fun as grabbing pussies, THAT I can tell you.
… he digs his hole deeper every time he speaks extemporaneously …
Over a year of observing Trump speaking to millions of Trump rally attendees and viewers “extemporaneously” and all the while with Trump spanking the eGOP candidates and Hillary at the voting booth like babies and the commentor STILL doesn’t get it. Understand that I am not complaining but only observing in wonderment at the level of willful ignorance, of the severe social blindness exhibited by the anti-Trumpers.
BTW, the opinion polls are shit. Most Trump supporters seem to know this – most anti-Trumpers do not. Pollsters depend on the fucking media whores for much of their living and therefore cannot be trusted for that fact alone.
Most Trump supporters also believe in Alternative Facts.
Most Trump supporters also believe in Alternative Facts.
No, you heard wrong and misunderstood. We Trumpers believe in alternative fucks. Allow me to elaborate:
As you probably know, we Trumpers regularly grab anti-Trumpers and the MSM by their pussies but what has NOT been widely reported is that sometimes, for variety, we also FUCK them. Kellyanne was simply trying to explain this to the Talking Whore.
"Did you misunderstand that I am a Trump 'fan'? I'm resisting my normal schtick to have a legitimate conversation here and you ignore everything I type? But you persist with your NeverTrump nonsense and expect me to engage?"
Birkel if I mis-assumed that you're a Trump fan, then sorry about that--I based it on your earlier comments but perhaps made a leap there. I assure you the only reason I come to these comment sections is to have legitimate conversations with those who disagree with me as they can be enlightening if in good faith. It's why I don't bother conversing with someone who only wants to insult or score "points" (sad as that sounds). So I assure you I'm not trying to do that here, either, as if you intend to engage and discuss I'm always open to that.
And as I may have wrongly assumed you're a "Trump-fan" you also mistakenly called me a "never-Trumper". To me, a 'never trumper" is just that--someone who would never vote for or support Trump. A Trump critic--and one who has defended him at times and tries to be fair in my criticisms--is not the same thing.
Brando, not for nothing, but aside from the fact that you were wrong wrong wrong about the election, do you have any kind of background in politics, psychology, or anything else that makes your opinions on how Trump should do things particularly valuable?
Now, you're certainly entitled to an opinion, like everybody else, but let's say you had a system at craps, and every time you went out shooting dice you lost your shirt, would around the time of your 2nd or 3rd mortgage, maybe you would rethink or try to see what it was you were missing?
I respect that you were wrong then but could be right now. But I'm not seeing that you are adjusting.
"Brando, not for nothing, but aside from the fact that you were wrong wrong wrong about the election..."
My prediction about the election was actually pretty close, a lot closer than most commenters here (particularly the Trumpers who claimed he would win in a landslide). I always said it would be a close race and that Hillary had an edge, which she did--she won the popular vote--but I never said she had it in the bag or would definitely win. I also said that the candidate who the voters are thinking about most when they voted would have the disadvantage, as they were both so unpopular. I was right about that too--the Comey news in the final two weeks had people thinking of HIllary, and lo and behold her poll numbers dropped to a tight enough race that allowed Trump to pull out the win.
I don't say that to imply I'm always right, and you'll notice I hedge my predictions because I don't believe I have any "special insight"--hell, I'm just sharing my own reactions for what they're worth, same as I appreciate the reactions of anyone (Trumper, leftist or otherwise) who disagrees with me but argues in good faith because I learn a lot more that way. And I owned up to the part of the election I got wrong--I didn't think Trump could break the "blue wall" (WI, PA, MI) and he managed to. So no, I'm not some guru and I hope I have not led you astray!
As for what I "think Trump should do" I'm only offering my reaction, FWIW. Maybe not worth much, but considering I'm part of a not insignificant number of people Trump needs (and when you pull off a victory with a hairs' breath, you need every part of your coalition) it's something. Just as Trumpers' opinions are worth something to the GOP at large.
If you disagree with my reaction, fine--I'm always up to discuss. But if you think I'm arguing that I'm right and anyone who disagrees is nonsense, that's not where I'm coming from.
I think I get where you're coming from, I'm just saying you don't seem to be responding to events. Like you said he has to work on his popularity. Well, last poll has him at 57%. Next will be higher.
The fracases are just that, foofaraws, argle-bargles, tinsel, chaff. You obviously see all that as kryptonite and it obviously isn't.
Meanwhile on substance he is slicing like a fucking hammer on executing the promises he has made. He is owning the establishment. The guy who gets us to 5% growth will never be asked if his inauguration attendance estimates were correct, and if he is, no one will care.
"The guy who gets us to 5% growth will never be asked if his inauguration attendance estimates were correct, and if he is, no one will care."
Absolutely agree on that. The results will be all that matters.
And I don't think these little annoying fracasas are kryptonite--most of us just tune out, and to the extent we find it distasteful or asinine it's not going to outweigh the bigger picture stuff. There's a lot I'd rather see in terms of changing the culture, but those are just my thoughts.
You know, I was going to say that he could be different, more civilized, whatever you want to call it, and please me more, but I'm not actually sure if that's true. This evening coming home from work and having dinner with my family I have been humming and cracking jokes and I haven't been this happy in a long time.
Right now is the Conan phase and the cries of the unknowns and other trolls and the media and other leftists are the driving before us and the lamentation of the women, and I just can't get enough. It's dangerous because he could probably do something that was really bad and I would like it because it would hurt them more/first.
I feel that we've been losing some kind of war for a long time and right now we're winning and I like it. More winning, Don! Sir, President Don that is. Meanwhile I'm sure he'll grow and improve and I hope it doesn't mean that he sells out. I'm definitely afraid the left will discover his real Achilles heel and use it, but I'm hopeful that they won't and can't.
I have been angry and concerned and perhaps if you like frightened for a long time at what was happening to this country. Now honestly I'm not sure that I know what's happening to this country, but I couldn't stand what was and I'm ready for finding out what change means.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा