I'll reserve my answer to give you a chance to confirm what I think is so obvious.
IN THE COMMENTS: 7 minutes after I posted this, Shane said:
At least make the "answer" available so we can move on to our other blogs that are less condescendingly precious this morning, hopefully. Please?15 minutes later, from me:
The comments are divided between the people who can't say it or are pretending not to know and the people who are saying it as plainly as possible, so why do the not-knowers not know yet?ALSO: Another question is: How would the press talk about Trump's relatively small in-person crowd if it wanted to portray Trump's support as better than Obama's?
Says Althouse, preciously condescendingly.
I think this is a harder question, so I'll blurt out my answer right away. Trump had huge rallies before the election, which is when — in a democracy — physically showing up matters. That's why they call it a rally. There's something you need people to get up and go out and do: Vote and rouse other people into voting. That was done for Trump and he won the election. Trump supporters achieved that. It's now time to get back to your own life, your work and your family and friends and to give the person you've elected a chance to fix the problems he said he'd fix, make America great again, etc.
To go out to see him now has more to do with the adoration of the man — as if he's your idol or you want to merge with him and have an emotive need about being "part of history." That's deranged in a democracy. It's more normal to believe you've done your political work. You shouldn't show up at a rally to further boost this man's look of importance and to get photographed as an element of a crowd and to be used instrumentally to magnify his power and give his to swearing in a feeling of divine ascension. He's President, and that's an earthly reality that's plenty in itself and achieved through the election, which happened months ago. You don't have to further inflate him or devote yourself as a follower.
In this view, the Trump supporters are not nutty or deluded or in thrall to a god-like celebrity. They're just ordinary people who focused on electing the best President and who've gone back to living in the real world. They didn't need or want to go to a love-in for the man.
If you use this template, you can make what happened with Obama in January 2009 look bad!
पोस्ट्स
१८५ टिप्पण्या:
Nazi Germany!
Nazi Germany!
Nazi Germany!
How do we know it wasn't?.Put not your faith in men.
Income Inequality! White Privilege! Racism!
At least make the "answer" available so we can move on to our other blogs that are less condescendingly precious this morning, hopefully. Please?
Sorry, Shane. Condescendingly Precious is my motto here.
I don't know the answer. I'm not prepared. I hope the Professor doesn't call on me.
Beats me what your answer is, but I'd bet some enterprising 'artist' would go through and photoshop white hoods on to every single attendee. Even the black/hispanic/female/LTGBTWXYZ ones.
That's a pretty good motto! It goes well with fatal neutrality, or whatever your other one is.
No we don't know.
A Nazi Rally, of course. All Dur Fuhrer is missing is a mustache...and his reddish blonde Viking mustache fades out, so a quick photo shop by CNN is needed, like that first down line the NFL adds by computer.
Nazi Germany!
evidence of how much farther we have to come as a country
Nuremberg Rally! Nuremberg Rally!
Tweak the levels in Photoshop so all their shirts are brown!
The press wouldn't have reported about it at all, or if forced said that Trump whipped the sheep into such a frenzy they've become brainwashed.
There were riots a few blocks away. Everyone knew there would be violent protest. But the press doesn't once mention how THAT could have suppressed turnout. The people I know who did attend left soon after the swearing in and didnt attend the parade because of the riot.
Disgusting...
The comments are divided between the people who can't say it or are pretending not to know and the people who are saying it as plainly as possible, so why do the not-knowers not know yet?
Says Althouse, preciously condescendingly.
Biggest gathering of racists since Triumph of the Will! Crowd shots from the movie, which showed the 1934 Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg.
They are all busy now making Swastika Flags. Don't you know how long it takes to make 100,000 flags?
At this point what difference does it make? When Dan Rather he of the "fake but accurate" and other silly stuff can lecture Kelly Anne Conway about "alternate facts" the press is headed straight down a deep mine shaft to irrelevance.
Racism, clearly. People just didn't want to turn out for a black man.
"Condescendingly Precious" would be a great name for a progressive doll! Comes with pussy cap and protest signs, simulated burning trash can, and says "Fuck the White House!" and "Screw our president!"
Adolf Hitler's first address as chancellor
My answer of "No, we don't know" is what I hoped you might have said. What you actually did say, I dunno.
Triumph of the Trump - obvious, as you say.
Peaceful Tea Party protests were scary and dark, anti-Trump riots are energetic expressions of democracy. Ho-hum.
I am with the Reifenstahl reborn crowd. I am not sure whether it would have been described as a 'Triumph of the Will' event, or as a well-lighted Kristallnacht, but it would have been pointed to by the media as an event showing the horrifying racism, etc.
I can tell you how many people were at Trump's inauguration rally... enough.
My money is on ignore it, or find some way to minimize the discrepancy, for example emphasizing that most of Trump's viewers were online vs a larger physical presence for Obama in 2009. See the FNM reaction to the comparison of Hillary and Trump's crowd sizes (it don't mean nuffin!), and the virtual blackout on the fact that exit polling shows a majority of white women voted for Trump.
They would have presented it as smaller than Obama's.
Head Slap! Of course it's Nazi Germany. How stupid of me.
The silly thing about using the Nazi Troph is that DJT's NYC Values are the traditional Dutch commercial tolerance of all people. That scary belief system was Hitler's first target after he finished moving Germany's Eastern boundary closer to his friend Stalin's Russia.
My initial answer:
They would have said crowds always get bigger with each inauguration and probably a lot of the attendees were there to protest.
I didn't think of the Nazi angle, which seems obvious now.
"Overwhelmingly white"
Here is a sidenote. Listening to EWTN radio, a women's show was talking about a congregation of pro-life women who set up a booth during the women's march. The Christian women's group espoused dignity for women through morality, a pro-life message. They were spit at, cursed at, received obscene gestures,and had things thrown at them. The palpable hate stunned the Christian women's group trying to participate. Whose gathering more resembled a Nazi state?
Nazi angle is too harsh. I say the press would have spun it as a Jacksonian mob of rubes from flyover country; Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, etc.
Hey Ann if you still think u ou are aProfessor who can give pop quizzes does Obambi still think he's President?
Precious is as Precious does. I rate our Dear Professor as the Precious Gold Standard. But The Professor may have competition now. Kellyann Conway is closing in and Princess Kate is also coming on fast.
Speaking of the women's march should Madonna be pursued for a terrorist threat? What if Rush Limbaugh would have made the comment he was going to bomb the White House during Obama's inauguration?
The wife and I were struck by the same observation watching Fox Sunday. Juan Williams went on a long riff about how Trump's "dark" inaugural address essentially called out black people by mentioning issues in inner cities. Of course, had Trump NOT mentioned issues in inner cities he would have been accused by Juan of ignoring the problems faced by black people and thus been - by inference - a racist.
I'm assuming the above comment that the answer Ms. Althouse is seeking is sometime like:
"Trump's larger crowds prove that white people - or America in general - won't turn out to see a black man become president."
Shane,
The condescension is in your head. However, Ann's forum is a rare example of cross party dialogue. So precious I agree with, although not in the sense I think you meant it.
They'd say Trump's was smaller.
Maybe as "Hoards of angry white old people".
Off-topic but I hope you're going to address the big story of the day: US sent $221 million to Palestinians in Obama's last hours
You can take the professor out of the classroom, but you can't take the classroom out of the professor.
Speaking of "people of color," where were they in the Ladies' March?
It looked like a giant rally of the NLAPW!
I'm with DanTheMan ... the correct answer is "overwhelmingly white"
Todd I'm tired of hearing "dark" too. It's a load of crap. That was the most optimistic uplifting inauguration I remember. Instead of the empty rhetoric of Obama it sounded plainly elegant and reassuring.
But the Press would have gone full Godwin on Trump's crowd if it had dared to be yuger.
I wonder if the people who claim not to know are genuine myself.
But maybe they just don't get the game being played by the press.
Nazi rally is the consensus of the comments. My first thought, at just around ten seconds, was fascist rally. Close enough to a Nazi rally.
Same, though, as the press would have covered it as a terrible thing. And that's the thing, the press is deeply partisan, deeply against Trump, and really has a difficult time even beginning to understand why someone would vote for him, let alone why "America First" resonates with so many.
I watched the inaugural address. Then read it the next day. Was it the best inaugural address ever? Likely not. Was it reprehensible? Um, no.
I didn't have the same answer as you. My first thought is they would have covered it the same way they covered the Tea Party- as if it was smaller than it was. But now that I think about it, they tried to portray the Tea Party as Nazis, too.
They would have ignored it, like they're going to do with the march this weekend.
I'm pretty sure "overwhelmingly white" would be the line regardless. Just like Trump's campaign rallies.
Except we were distracted by the issue of the numbers, so there wasn't any need to fill time by talking about the racial makeup of the crowd.
"Overwhelmingly white" and "just like Hitler's crowds" was the recurring theme for the last year, or however long Trump was doing those giant 10k+ rallies.
The lefty media supplies favorable narratives. It doesn't supply unfavorable narratives and react with spin.
The press would have de-legitimized a larger crowd just as they did the Tea Party rallies. They would have focused on the large amount of white people in attendance, and somehow slant the narrative to define the attendees as angry, hateful, etc...
We'd see the picture of the record crowd posted next to
a. Nuremberg rally
b. KKK march on Washington in the 20's.
Your pick.
Agree with Sandy Coalfax at 7:44 but I would replace "people" with "men."
"They were spit at, cursed at, received obscene gestures, and had things thrown at them."
That sounds made up. Remember when the black members of Congress walked through the anti-Obamacare rally and were said to have been spit on?
If that were the case the spin would be not crowd size but how "white" the crowd was, and special focus on any crazies (especially neo-Nazi crazies) who showed up. Almost no photos of young and attractive people, or interviews with sympathetic working class folks who came a long way to see it.
Next month in Forbes, don't miss 'Ten Ways to Appear More Preciously Condescending Than You Are.'
1) Don't just skip that drink, gesture towards your colleague's drink with your chin and say, "Having a little drink are we?"
"Speaking of the women's march should Madonna be pursued for a terrorist threat? What if Rush Limbaugh would have made the comment he was going to bomb the White House during Obama's inauguration?"
Madonna said she thought of bombing the White House but then realized that love is the answer.
She never said she was going to do it, never threatened to do it. She was speaking against violence but admitting that she understood the way people think of violence as the answer, before saying that it isn't.
1. I don't think you're being condescending, Althouse.
2. It is obvious, what would have happened if Trump's inaugural crowd had been bigger; it would not have been a story.
3. But the reason that the crowd issue became so big was not because of any intense media campaign; the reason that the story was so huge, was because of the Trump reaction. And re-reaction.
4. And yet Trump likes the big story being a closer comparison between himself and Obama '09; rightly so, because it takes attention away from the size of the worldwide Womens March crowds, which were enormous (in addition to being profoundly silly) on a scale beyond any inauguration, regardless of presidency.
"Madonna said she thought of bombing the White House but then realized that love is the answer."
Got it. Madonna=Love.
mockturtle said...
Off-topic but I hope you're going to address the big story of the day: US sent $221 million to Palestinians in Obama's last hours
1/24/17, 7:45 AM
Yeah...let's talk about this!!!
I did Nazi that coming!
You're still talking about this silly issue?
"...should Madonna be pursued for a terrorist threat?"
No, not pursued. The SS should just come to her door and make sure she hasn't lost it, maybe ask her when is the last time she talked to Sean Penn.
Seriously though, they should explain to her the potential ramifications of irresponsible talk from a celebrity, how she might unwittingly encourage some nut somewhere. But no punishment or threats are needed here.
Speaking of women's rallies: anybody catch Ashley Judd's contribution?
Hard to believe her marriage didn't work out.
Remember when John Hinckley tried to impress Jody Foster by trying to assassinate Reagan??? Madonnas words have meaning...to some crazy person out there. You never know who will listen to that, and think they will impress her. Remember how the left blamed Sarah Palin for Gabby Giffords shooting, because she had a target on Arizona for political reasons?
Dozens, maybe hundreds.
For all of you claiming that the media would have made a comparison to Nazi Germany, please provide some examples of the MSM calling Trump a fascist or Nazi. I am really curious where this meme comes from that the press is out to destroy Trump. If anything, Trump is out to destroy the press, shouldn't they be able to fight back.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2016/11/22/cnn-losses-it-over-small-neo-nazi-meeting-downplay-disavowal
Freder Frederson said...
For all of you claiming that the media would have made a comparison to Nazi Germany, please provide some examples of the MSM calling Trump a fascist or Nazi.
Joe Scarborough ass kissing to his MSNBC employers and audience
Whitelash
One obvious fact about the crowd size in Washington. Trump supporters live further away.
But I'm crowd size agnostic, myself. I've always considered getting up and doing your job and taking care of your kids and being productive the epitome of political activism.
Who cares. The majority of people who go to government functions and ceremonies in DC are from DC. DC is deep blue. They don't care about anything other than deep blue cares. They stated home.
Freder Frederson said...
For all of you claiming that the media would have made a comparison to Nazi Germany, please provide some examples of the MSM calling Trump a fascist or Nazi.
ABC's Terry Moran regarding America First
Freder, the press has been busily destroying itself. No Trump help needed.
Ann Althouse said...
"That sounds made up. Remember when the black members of Congress walked through the anti-Obamacare rally and were said to have been spit on?"
Yes, we recall that John Lewis is a lying sack of shit. We also recall video of one of these peaceful protesters punching Richard Spencer in the face during a press interview. That sounds pretty made up too, wouldn't you say? I'm fairly sure that couldn't really happen in Washington DC. That sounds like something out of Nazi Germany!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-media-scream-abc-says-trumps-america-first-is-nazi-like/article/2612699
Freder--Why do we have to do your homework for you? Google Chris Matthews Trump Nazi and this comes right up from that noted right-wing cesspool, The Hill:
'MSNBC's Chris Matthews: Trump inauguration speech 'Hitlerian''
Ann Althouse said...
"They were spit at, cursed at, received obscene gestures, and had things thrown at them."
That sounds made up. Remember when the black members of Congress walked through the anti-Obamacare rally and were said to have been spit on?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaay off-topic, but can we revive the past participle of "spit"? The word is "spat". Such a great word! Much like "shat". These words enrich the language.
Freder, do you get out much?
www.salon.com/ Jan 14, 2017 - Trump is more like a cartoon version of Hitler than the real thing...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ 4 days ago - Trump isn't quite promising “America über alles,” but it comes close. “America First” was the motto of Nazi-friendly Americans in the 1930s, and ...
www.vanityfair.com/ Unfortunately for Donald and Ivana Trump, all that glittered wasn't gold. But the ..... Is Ivana trying to convince her friends and lawyer that Trump is a crypto-Nazi? [from 2015 yet!]
www.motherjones.com/ During the Republican National Convention in July, Trump endorser Andrew Anglin, who runs a neo-Nazi website called the Daily Stormer, ...
Try harder dumb shit. I only threw Mother Jones in at the end to remind FF that every news outlet slimed Trump by claiming Nazis were part of his core audience, which is bullshit. I'm pretty sure there were more lesbian mudwrestler MAGA-hat wearing voters for Trump than Nazis. And that's just one demographic that outnumbers the straw stormtroopers in the media mindset.
For all of you claiming that the media would have made a comparison to Nazi Germany, please provide some examples of the MSM calling Trump a fascist or Nazi. I am really curious where this meme comes from that the press is out to destroy Trump
Wasn't it mere seconds after the inaugural address that Chris Matthews called it "Hitlerian"?
Really, you lefties are so vicious. I voted for Trump because after he dispatched the meddling pope, he had proved to me that he is willing to fight like you libruls. Kick 'em hard in the nutz!
- Krumhorn
For all of you claiming that the media would have made a comparison to Nazi Germany, please provide some examples of the MSM calling Trump a fascist or Nazi.
You couldn't just start with the obvious and Google the search terms Olbermann Maddow Trump Nazi?
Olbermann: "After referring to Donald Trump as a “Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade balloon in a suit” the host was emphatic with his belief that the historical political campaign boasting most similar precedent to the current state of Donald Trump’s is when “Adolf Hitler ran in 1932 and 1933.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/3678168/keith-olbermann-hitler-trump-fbi-fascism-1932-nazi-campaign-convince-just-one-person-to-vote/
Maddow: "Over the past year I've been reading a lot about what it was like when Hitler first became chancellor. I am gravitating toward moments in history for subliminal reference in terms of cultures that have unexpectedly veered into dark places, because I think that's possibly where we are."
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/features/the-last-word-rachel-maddow-on-trump-dystopias-and-success-20160712
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2016/03/08/abc-nbc-hype-comparing-trump-hitler-nazis
Commenters and protesters, clearly we have too much time on our hands. Now back to work. Someone has to pay the bills, balance the budget, and pay off the debt. Besides spending a convincing your children they are the most important things in your universe. Do what Barron's nuclear family is doing for him. No nanny in sight. He certainly knows how important he is. Something every other child in the world should be blessed with. Which means a salary one of the parents can stay home on. Oh well, yes I do dream.
Ann Althouse said...
"That sounds made up. Remember when the black members of Congress walked through the anti-Obamacare rally and were said to have been spit on?"
And Jesse Jackson Jr was with them with his phone out taping the whole thing. Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 to anybody who could prove it...nobody ever came forward....????? They lied...again!! Civil Rights leaders or not..they lied!
And, Althouse; about your second question...
Let's restate that question: How would the press talk about Trump's relatively small in-person crowd if it wanted to portray Trump's support as better than Obama's?
First, your own blogged answer seems like a very good one to me. You get to the end of those few paragraphs and posit that if a unified press (is there such a thing?) wanted to pick a narrative that would be helpful to Trump, they could, and it would be like the narrative you described so succinctly.
But Trump has an interest in portraying Trump positively. Why pick the fact-deprived, laughably self-aggrandizing, low-information way to do that? That is what Trump did. Trump essentially claimed, Mine's bigger! Don't believe those lying liars who say otherwise!
It is Trump himself who could have chosen "your" interesting, compelling, nuanced way to narrate the story of the Inauguration. Trump chose differently. Trump chose the way that delighted his devoted followers, and offended most of the rest.
"In this view, the Trump supporters are not nutty or deluded or in thrall to a god-like celebrity. They're just ordinary people who focused on electing the best President and who've gone back to living in the real world. They didn't need or want to go to a love-in for the man."
If so, then why is it so important for Trump to pretend he had a much bigger audience than he had?
I don't like hero worship--whether it was for Obama or Trump. Smaller crowds are fine, and signify nothing. If Trump could accept that I'd be fine with that. But he seems more bothered by this than a president should be. And if he's going to be bothered by this, he's going to have a long 4-8 years.
When I first learned that the mainstream media were disparaging the size of Trump's inauguration crowds relative to the crowds for Obama's 2009 inauguration my thought was that we wouldn't know whether the crowds really were smaller, or were larger, or were comparable in size because they -- the media -- had decided in advance that the crowds would of course be smaller so there! But purely as a thought experiment let's assume that the crowds were larger for Trump and the media actually accurately reported that fact (as if!). Then I'm with those folks upthread who say the media would be mostly going on about the whiteness of the crowds. I know that Chris Matthews called Trump's speech "Hitlerian" but that's a thin board to stand on if you're going to assert that the media are going to apply Godwin's law this soon in the administration.
"But he seems more bothered by this than a president should be."
I'm not so sure he is bothered. My guess is that he adopts the pose of being bothered for the purpose of keeping his Minutemen supporters sharp and energized.
@Brando, what would Trump do differently if his goal was to do thoroughly discredit the media that they were effectively defanged?
"If you use this template, you can make what happened with Obama in January 2009 look bad!"
That template works for me.
"Trump chose differently. Trump chose the way that delighted his devoted followers, and offended most of the rest." Didn't offend me. Reason: Trump has decided to fight, everything, all the time. Sure, it can get silly. But it doesn't "offend" me that, in an era when "facts" are tools, and "knowledge" is peddled exclusively to pursue prog power, DJT is just not gonna back down. I wish we'd have Habermasian ideal speech 24/7, but we don't, so I'll take fight over Bushian cheek-turning--reserving the right to laugh at specific moves in the fight.
"he's going to have a long 4-8 years"
4 years. 2, in fact. He's totally a build-it, drain-it, under-budget, ahead-of-schedule type project manager.
The oldest political trick in the book is creating a bandwagon effect by parading through town playing music or later by shouting on loudspeaker trucks. The crowd effect was what they were after. Attendance of viewers affirms the messenger and his message, or he is a failure.
The French have used one method since the days when they were under a Monarchy and Church Clerical oppressors. They Take to the streets. The Miserables erect street barricades to shut the city down and stop parades of Troops.
Then a Captain of the Artillery, named Napoleon, invented using huge artillery pieces designed for siege of city walls instead inside the city for firing grapeshot down the street to clear them of any living opposition. And later his successors widened the arterial streets of Paris too wide to be effectively barricaded.
And don't forget what we learned in Sociology 101. Politics is about Opinion Leaders that create a "following."
"@Brando, what would Trump do differently if his goal was to do thoroughly discredit the media that they were effectively defanged?"
JMO, but I'd stick with calling them out when they are actually wrong, and expose their bias when they're spinning. The "crowd size" thing falls in the latter category--media making a point of his comparatively small crowd (photos of empty bleachers, reports of every artist who wouldn't show up, NPS estimates and bus permits and metro ridership numbers). Arguing that their numbers were all wrong, the photos were all doctored--it's not just silly because no serious person is going to argue that he actually had a record turnout, it's silly because it misses the real point which is that the same media that downplayed rally size during the campaign is suddenly interested in crowd size now! It is the media making a point about something that doesn't matter, and yet are doing it just to show how much they're against him. That is bias you can demonstrate, among many other examples (e.g., media presenting his protests vs. how they portrayed Tea Party protests).
But this game of "crowd size" makes it look to those who are skeptical of both Trump and the media as though Trump is not just trying to pass off a dumb lie, but a needless one, because he's so obsessed with minutiae he misses the big picture.
Just my two cents, anyway. I'm sure the Trump faction sees that as accepting the wrong reality, that the crowd size was actually massive, millions showed up, just no one filmed it and they all got to town by foot, and Trump is doing the best thing here by never missing an opportunity to deny literally everything the media says, period. I'm just presenting it how I see it.
"4 years. 2, in fact. He's totally a build-it, drain-it, under-budget, ahead-of-schedule type project manager."
Ha, if it's like most contractors we may have to extend the option past 8...
Sebastian said...
"Trump chose differently. Trump chose the way that delighted his devoted followers, and offended most of the rest." Didn't offend me. Reason: Trump has decided to fight, everything, all the time. Sure, it can get silly. But it doesn't "offend" me that, in an era when "facts" are tools, and "knowledge" is peddled exclusively to pursue prog power, DJT is just not gonna back down. I wish we'd have Habermasian ideal speech 24/7, but we don't, so I'll take fight over Bushian cheek-turning--reserving the right to laugh at specific moves in the fight.
You are proving my point. You, an enthusiastic supporter of Trump, were "delighted" by the force and the method of Trump's pushback. It doesn't make you any better or any lesser in this context. I don't care about why you like Trump, or why you might dislike Trump. But it remains a fact, that what delights you as a Trump supporter, offends many others.
Meade said... [hush][hide comment]
"he's going to have a long 4-8 years"
4 years. 2, in fact. He's totally a build-it, drain-it, under-budget, ahead-of-schedule type project manager.
Wouldn't that be something? Actually get a govt project done on time and budget.
In Ca , Arnold put an emergency repair job out for bid to private contractors, (freeway, or something). Offered a bonus for quick completion. Company who won the bid finished within budget, and ahead of schedule.
Althouse:
It has been reported (grain of salt required) that Trump Hotel employees in D.C. brought police a defibrillator after one of the anti-Trump marchers had a heart attack. The police administered the defibrillator and the woman lived (as of the reporting).
Those Trump Hotel employees were booed by other marchers. Apparently there is video.
There was video of punching too. Aimed at various people. One was in Canada, land of the tolerant Leftist batterers.
So I can see how you doubt the story mentioned above. (/sarc)
Chuck: Trump essentially claimed, Mine's bigger!
No he didn't. The statement was roughly "more people on-site and around the world watched" as you well know from being schooled yesterday, with special emphasis on "around the world." You know if you're going to credibly claim the anti-Trump mantel you might want to start by ditching your dishonest way of asking the same question over and over that's been answered over and over. Since you spin and lie and set up false choices, it is very difficult to take you seriously. Not that your monomania is a serious pursuit.
Try using statements actually made by Trump if you want us play your stupid game.
I have not looked at any comments above. My immediate answer is that Trump supporters had job to go to.
Now, I will comments.
An aroused Democracy scares Chuck. He needs a safe space Party of submissive saints. He is a Saul Alinsky Rules professional complaining that DJT has no rules that he can be be held to. Trump is acting like a George Patton gone out of control and winning too fast.
Chuck said: "Trump chose the way that delighted his devoted followers, and offended most of the rest."
Sebastian: "Didn't offend me."
Chuck said: You are proving my point. You, an enthusiastic supporter of Trump, were "delighted" by the force and the method of Trump's pushback.
###
Do you see why we call you dishonest, a smear merchant, a twister of other's words? Seb says he wasn't offended and you use exaggerated, hyperbolic language just like Donald Trump! You really are a moby aren't you?
In Ca , Arnold put an emergency repair job out for bid to private contractors, (freeway, or something). Offered a bonus for quick completion. Company who won the bid finished within budget, and ahead of schedule.
That may be a true story of Arnold but Pete Wilson had the consequences of the 1994 earthquake to deal with and he did the bid and bonus thing with freeway repair. It was all completed in record time. And under budget.
California is now ruled by Democrats and god help them if another occurs.
Chuck, who supports anything anti-Trump: "But it remains a fact, that what delights you as a Trump supporter, offends many others."
Oh no! Not the dreaded many.
"Trump is worse than Coney Island!"
"Trump is worse than ... RUSSIANS!"
But I vote for "they would ignore it", because that's their most common method of lying.
Am curious about the report that some of the Women Marching 'spit at' &c &c a group of other, pro-life, women, and about AA's judgment, 'fake news'. While I'm not about to listen to recordings of EWTN radio programs to find the audio, I did look about briefly and didn't find any mention of this at the sites that I'm aware of. Is it just the alleged spitting that seems 'fake', do you think, or the likelihood that the Women Marching would have passed by a group of pro-life women without noticing their presence? I can't see the latter happening, given the circumstances.
Vichy Chuck whined...
"...it remains a fact, that what delights you as a Trump supporter, offends many others."
Dear, me! We certainly don't want anyone to be offended! :-(
Ann, minor violence against pro-life picketers or marchers - spitting, cursing, throwing coffee - is the norm. And threats are common. I personally have been told "You're dead, lady" simply because I was holding a sign outside a clinic.
I personally have been knocked to the ground and had beer poured on me by Communist (Trotskyite) counter-protestors simply because I was praying outside a clinic. Of course, I was extremely thirsty the day that happened and had just finished silently praying for help with my thirst, so perhaps I brought the beer on myself. I got a good drink because they poured it all over my face and didn't stop till they saw I was swallowing. They were outraged, but I got up and quietly thanked them as a good Christian should, making them even madder as I knew it would.
Every pro-lifer has a war story. No one realizes what pro-lifers have been going through but it is a lot like what Trump people are going through now.
Okay, Mike, let's use Trump's words. Becaue you, Mike, are mixing up Trump's unhinged statement and Sean Spicer's several more careful-than-Trump statements. And oh by the way please look at the video of this, to appreciate Trump's bizarre stage-whisper delivery of this nonsense, wherein one might think that Trump is sharing an important little secret with 400 of his closest friends and a national tv audience.
So here's a couple of paragraphs from Trump at CIA:
And I was explaining about the numbers. We did a thing yesterday at the speech. Did everybody like the speech? (Applause.) I’ve been given good reviews. But we had a massive field of people. You saw them. Packed. I get up this morning, I turn on one of the networks, and they show an empty field. I say, wait a minute, I made a speech. I looked out, the field was -- it looked like a million, million and a half people. They showed a field where there were practically nobody standing there. And they said, Donald Trump did not draw well. I said, it was almost raining, the rain should have scared them away, but God looked down and he said, we’re not going to let it rain on your speech.
In fact, when I first started, I said, oh, no. The first line, I got hit by a couple of drops. And I said, oh, this is too bad, but we’ll go right through it. But the truth is that it stopped immediately. It was amazing. And then it became really sunny. And then I walked off and it poured right after I left. It poured. But, you know, we have something that’s amazing because we had -- it looked -- honestly, it looked like a million and a half people. Whatever it was, it was. But it went all the way back to the Washington Monument. And I turn on -- and by mistake I get this network, and it showed an empty field. And it said we drew 250,000 people. Now, that’s not bad, but it’s a lie. We had 250,000 people literally around -- you know, in the little bowl that we constructed. That was 250,000 people. The rest of the 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument, was packed. So we caught them, and we caught them in a beauty. And I think they’re going to pay a big price.
Fabi said...
Vichy Chuck whined...
"...it remains a fact, that what delights you as a Trump supporter, offends many others."
Dear, me! We certainly don't want anyone to be offended! :-(
As you know very well, it is what a lot of Trump supporters want more than anything; to piss off all the right people.
That's a line that admittedly has some attraction for me; the notion that "Trump is pissing off all the right people." Except that for me, some of the people whom Trump has pissed off (George Will, Bill Kristol, Bret Stephens, Holman Jenkins, Thomas Sowell, etc.) are the wrong people to piss off.
Chuck says
You are proving my point. You, an enthusiastic supporter of Trump, were "delighted" by the force and the method of Trump's pushback. It doesn't make you any better or any lesser in this context. I don't care about why you like Trump, or why you might dislike Trump. But it remains a fact, that what delights you as a Trump supporter, offends many others.
I am not an enthusiastic supporter. More of the anti-Clinton anti establishment group,.
I am delighted at his pushback, although sometimes it is ridiculous.
I don't care if Trump and his entire family get richer.
I don't care if Trump is a narcissist or a sociopath.
I don't care if he insults everyone every day.
I do care about creating or keeping jobs for un skilled and semi skilled people.
Trump actually does wants to create jobs and rebuild the country.
Full Moon;
So you are "not an enthusiastic supporter" of Trump.
Me too!
You see what is going on, with Althouse comments? Because I am an "unenthusiastic" supporter of Trump, and also someone who finds Trump's personal foibles, tics, tirades, lying, stupidity and general mendacity to be worthy of mention, I am portrayed as an OPPONENT of Trump and in fact something I am not at all; that I am some sort of left winger Democrat progressive.
There is no nuance, no discussion in Trumpland. You are either with them, or against them, they think. And everyone who is not with them, and who is thereby against them, is some sort of commie. Who knows; maybe Rand Paul is a "commie" in the age of Trump. If George Will, Bill Kristol and the editorial pages of the National Review and Wall Street Journal are all "commies," anybody could be a "commie."
@Chuck -- Pissing off all the right people is lagniappe. George Will, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens are three of the biggest losers in the country -- rendered impotent by Trump's election. By the way, how did those three do in their efforts Trump? Lulz
efforts **to stop** Trump
Careful though, Fabi et al., the "I won" card can and has been overplayed.
So, just so I understand, Chuck claims that if one is not an "enthusiastic Trump supporter", then one was offended by Trump's comments.
Several people report (credibly, to my eye) that they're neither enthusiastic Trump supporters nor offended by his comments.
From this, Chuck somehow infers that there's "no nuance, no discussion in Trumpland". A logical reading of these facts actually suggests that there's clearly plenty of nuance in Trumpland, and no nuance at all in Chuckland.
The TEA Party in DC was an exceptional event. Americans do not normally assemble or protest in large numbers, far away from home, and from every part of the nation in a truly organic movement. The Press reacted predictably, straining to undercount, and assigned ulterior, even vicious, motives, beginning with but not ending with characterizing the men and women as [class] diversitists, uncaring, etc.
Just following Obama's lead, Meade! ;-)
In all seriousness, it's not something I would say to anyone other than Chuck or the lefties and Trump haters. I wouldn't even bother with it at all if they weren't -- and aren't -- in a permanent state of hatred and rage regarding DJT.
Chuck said...
Full Moon;
So you are "not an enthusiastic supporter" of Trump.
Me too!
You see what is going on, with Althouse comments? Because I am an "unenthusiastic" supporter of Trump, and also someone who finds Trump's personal foibles, tics, tirades, lying, stupidity and general mendacity to be worthy of mention, I am portrayed as an OPPONENT of Trump and in fact something I am not at all; that I am some sort of left winger Democrat progressive.
There is no nuance, no discussion in Trumpland. You are either with them, or against them, they think. And everyone who is not with them, and who is thereby against them, is some sort of commie. Who knows; maybe Rand Paul is a "commie" in the age of Trump. If George Will, Bill Kristol and the editorial pages of the National Review and Wall Street Journal are all "commies," anybody could be a "commie."
Now, now, Chuck, no fair attempting to normalize yourself by jumping on my bandwagon. I am still miffed that you threatened to physically assault Greta. Had you encountered her a t a woman's march, we might have seen your name in the news.
I watched the Apprentice. It became obvious that Trump could find reason to keep his favorites as long as possible and fire more competent contestant who drew fewer ratings.
So, was never a fan when he entered the race. Believed he did it for publicity and would drop out, like Jackson and Sharpton.
Anyway, it is becoming obvious that you are less vociferous in your dislike of Trump, and are finding occasional common ground with his decisions, although he personally remains vulgar and rude and petty. You are in a tough spot, having to convince the other commenters that your original dislike is still valid, while ever so slightly agreeing with the occasional sensible thing he might say.
I watched it live Chuck. What's your point? He literally never says the crowd was larger than Obama's. Show me where he "lied" Chuck. Because you're doing the same thing the AP is today, alleging that Trump and Spicer lied, without, you know showing their work. Show me the lie or shut the fuck up about it!
Maybe the crowd thing is a dog whistle that only Chuck hears?
To go out to see him now has more to do with the adoration of the man
No Judgment. If you have the interest, the means, and the opportunity, go for it. Everyone likes like a little pomp and circumstance now and then. The inauguration promises a spectacular return. Enjoy.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/01/the-associated-press-goes-to-war-with-trump.php
I'm pretty sure "Chuck" is actually an AP reporter OR has completed an ignoramus-mind-meld with one and is channeling zhem in this thread.
Fabi; it is surely true -- as they have all loudly proclaimed -- that Will, Kristol and Stephens didn't want Trump to be President. Of the three, I think only Will said that he would vote for Clinton, and then Will made it clear that he'd vote for Clinton only because he did not want Trump to infect the Republican Party, and conservatism, and the nation, past the general election date.
But I don't feel like a loser (I voted for Trump) and I doubt that any of the three commentators do, either. I feel a bit unmoored, by Trump's weird unreliability. A lot of loyal Republicans and conservatives do. But for my part, I am liking quite a lot of what I am seeing in terms of actual orders, nominations, legislative planning, etc. It's early. They haven't hit the hard parts yet.
Now, now, Chuck, no fair attempting to normalize yourself by jumping on my bandwagon. I am still miffed that you threatened to physically assault Greta.
As we all know, if I did to Greta what Corey Lewandowski did to Michelle Fields (and that was my threat; I NEVER threatened to "physically assault" anybody), then it would NOT be an assault, because Greta said so.
Mike, the rain didn't stop as soon as Trump began to speak, and then "pour" immediately afterward. There weren't a million people there, and there weren't a million and a half people there.
And Mike I am not aware of any network "lying," as Trump claimed, with their own report about how many people ("250,000" was Trump's claim about the false report) were there.
Mike, which network was Trump talking about? What was the lie?
Meade: 'm not so sure he is bothered. My guess is that he adopts the pose of being bothered for the purpose of keeping his Minutemen supporters sharp and energized.
The other part of this may be to keep the opposition distracted. The MSM seems totally oblivious that the Trump change train has gathered steam and is barreling down the tracks, while everyone discusses inauguration viewership. As I noted last night, the guy has made a career of keeping a bunch of balls in the air, and when they come down, they do so where and when they are supposed to, under budget and on time, with no missing support walls. The rest of the country is fixated at watching the magician's one hand, while they miss what the other hand, and the assistants, are doing.
Trump is dining with the Pope at Mar A Lago and a gust of wind sends the Pope's hat into the ocean. It blows out to where the water is deep. Trump jumps up, walks out over the water, grabs the hat and returns to give it respectfully to the Pope. CNN chryon reads "Trump can't swim."
From Yahoo news today:Spicer concluded by pointing to a tweet sent out by a Time reporter that said Trump had removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. The bust is apparently still in the presidential workspace. The reporter, who was on a pool duty shift at the time, apologized.
See, this is why people who are not necessarily "Trumpkins" support Trump calling out the media lies.
This reporter knows the bust is there but lies and says "apparently".
Blogger Chuck said...
Now, now, Chuck, no fair attempting to normalize yourself by jumping on my bandwagon. I am still miffed that you threatened to physically assault Greta.
As we all know, if I did to Greta what Corey Lewandowski did to Michelle Fields (and that was my threat; I NEVER threatened to "physically assault" anybody), then it would NOT be an assault, because Greta said so.
But, Chuck, you claimed it was an assault on Fields, and you said you would prove it to Greta by grabbing her in exactly the same fashion. Are you now backing off and agreeing with Greta and most of America that claims of assault were lies?
But, Chuck, you claimed it was an assault on Fields, and you said you would prove it to Greta by grabbing her in exactly the same fashion. Are you now backing off and agreeing with Greta and most of America that claims of assault were lies?
I think I did sort of say that it was an assault, but that was never the big thing. The big thing was the brazen way that Lewandowski and Trump lied about it. Lewandowski lied and said he had never met Michelle. Trump lied and said he didn't think anything happened.
I NEVER said that I "would prove" that it was an assault by doing the same thing. Doing the same thing would not prove anything about what had happened previously.
All that I wanted to do, was to offend Greta's sensibility, because I don't like her and never have, and I think that she was covering for Lewandowski at the behest of the pro-Trump producers at Fox. Proving that ugly women can still be whores.
If Greta had thought that the Lewandowski touching was trivial, non-criminal and non-actionable, then my touching her in the same fashion would be non-criminal and non-actionable. According to Greta van Susteren.
btw; she's now found her true home, in non-prime-time on MSNBC. She should try to defend Lewandowski over there, and see how that goes.
I will assume the first commenter got it right, and will now scan for Ms. Althouse's answer.
I actually think the commenters who think the media would have ignored Trump having more people at the inauguration are the ones who are correct- had Trump's been larger than Obama's you wouldn't have heard a peep about it. We had already seen this during the campaign itself- only pro-Republican media sources showed or commented on the fact that Trump's rallies were much more popular than Clinton's rallies, and I think that point is supported by the sudden interest in the fact that the media finally found a crowd metric where Trump likely was a comparative loser in crowds and couldn't wait to point it out over and over.
Chuck: Mike, the rain didn't stop as soon as Trump began to speak, and then "pour" immediately afterward. There weren't a million people there, and there weren't a million and a half people there.
And Mike I am not aware of any network "lying," as Trump claimed, with their own report about how many people ("250,000" was Trump's claim about the false report) were there.
Mike, which network was Trump talking about? What was the lie?
So Chuck can't point to any falsifiable statement made by Trump. Noted. He said, to him, "it looked like a million, million and a half" and I believe it could have looked tthat way. Who are you to say his perception is wrong? He didn't say it WAS 1M people, he said it looked that way. He said as soon as he left it started pouring. Can you disprove it rained right after he left? No. So you're "not aware of" any network reporting 250K in the crowd, but you can't rally say he's lying because you don't know which network reported that.
You're straining at gnats there, Chuckie. Flailing and failing. You don't like his manner of speech. OK. I get it. But you still after days of working on it cannot find a LIE that he proffered, can you? Maybe he's smarter than you and that's what really put a bug up your butt.
@Chuck -- I was a Cruz guy and was not excited about Trump. The difference between you and I -- if I may -- is that I was mostly interested in stopping Clinton versus anything related to party purity or its machinations. I'm thankful he stopped her and until he screws up in the policy department, I'm behind him completely.
So you're "not aware of" any network reporting 250K in the crowd, but you can't rally say he's lying because you don't know which network reported that.
You tell me; what network reported that? That was what got Trump all hot and bothered at the start. Trump said so himself.
He said, to him, "it looked like a million, million and a half" and I believe it could have looked tthat way. Who are you to say his perception is wrong? He didn't say it WAS 1M people, he said it looked that way.
I'll stipulate; Trump says a lot of silly things about what he feels, thinks, believes. Under no reasonable estimate did Trump "see" a million people. Beside being a basically silly thing to argue about, it also reminds us of Trump's having lied about seeing "thousands" of people in New Jersey celebrating the fall of the World Trade Center. He's a serial fabricator when it comes to talking about crowd numbers. Whatever. Trump can say that it "looked" to him like a million and a half people, but everybody knows that it wasn't. What Trump DIDN'T say was, "Hey, I don't care about crowd numbers because I am focused on bigger things, like growing the U.S economy and getting the monolithic bloc of federal regulations off of ever sector of that economy..."
He said as soon as he left it started pouring. Can you disprove it rained right after he left?
Yeah, Mike I can. You dumb fuck head. With video. Immediately after the Trump inaugural address, the Trumps and the Pences accompanied the Obamas to the other side of the Capitol, where the "Marine One" helicopter waited to take the Obamas to Joint Base Andrews. It was right after the Trump speech, and before the long Congressional lunch in Statuary Hall.
And it is NOT POURING RAIN:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/barack-michelle-obama-leave-capitol-helicopter-44927261
(Sorry for the terrible ABC News commentary; not my fault.)
Fuck you, Mike.
Sunday, I sent the cellphone picture from Facebook to Althouse showing the crowd from Trump's POV. I guess she rather keep the controversy going than end it. From the picture showing the crowd extending back to the Washington Monument, a guess of a million or a million and a half would seem reasonable. No matter what asshole Chuck says.
http://i65.tinypic.com/296gjmu.jpg[/IMG]
But Trump made his "million and a half" comment on Saturday morning, Darrell. If Trump was as obsessed as he seemed about crowd numbers, he could have asked his staff to check it out. That day, with the event over, and with time to check facts and figures before saying something inappropriate off-the-cuff.
But now that we know Trump, we pretty much know what to think. Trump has such a blindingly inflated view of his own grandiosity, he probably heard CNN report that 250,000 tickets had been distributed, but maybe not all of them used, or some such thing, that got all garbled in Trump's furtive mind. And he turned it, in true Trumpian fashion, into dis of his legitimacy. And so he exploded.
Chuck why does it even matter to you what Trump's view from the podium was? Can you differentiate between 720,000 people and 900,000 at a glance? No. No you can't. You're just a dick that likes to argue over OPINION not fact. You DON'T know that it didn't look like a million people, you just assume your perception would be sharper. Trump is living the large orange life in your head Buddy. Rent free!
But Trump
Just write that Chuck. It's shorter and more illuminating. I imagine a kind of exhaled snort when you say it.
You're right, Chuck.
Try writing that, you assclown.
When you are I will. I have in fact.
That of course, dear readers, is the last refuge of the debate scoundrels. When finally caught, their answer (much like Mrs. Clinton's) is "Okay, so what difference does it make?"
But really, why does Trump's "it looked like a million" matter? It's not stated as fact. It's the way it felt. Hell it should feel like 60 million were out there. But why does it matter to you what he feels?
If you're debating you're doing it wrong. I admitted you were right once long ago. You're way out there wrong today, spud. Sad clown in the rain type of wrong.
Look Chuck. On Saturday the Park Service gave an estimate of 250,000 and Trump responded to that and said he didn't think it was that low. Later, at the CIA, he said there were 250,000 just in the enclosed area closest to the podium and a million, maybe a million and a half total. That seems reasonable. Two hundred fifty thousand would make it one of the lowest attended Inaugurations in history--and that is not accurate. I would be pissed,too. Do you see the difference in my photo with image that CNN was putting out? I can. CNN is lying. And everyone else is holding back their alternate images. Sounds like Journolist concocted the story beforehand and everyone fell in line.
Chuck: But Trump made his "million and a half" comment on Saturday morning, Darrell. If Trump was as obsessed as he seemed about crowd numbers, he could have asked his staff to check it out.
There is no definitive way to measure it since Park Service stopped counting. You wrote that. It's true (in a departure from your norm). But now you slyly back away from that fact and try to assert there is a way to count. How very dishonest of you. Again. You and the Press are obsessed with the crowd size. Trump mentions it a couple times and moves on. It's the dead-enders and dishonest media and monomaniacal antitrumpisticals like YOU who are OBSESSED with the count. And don't try to suggest here that if his staff had "verified" the number you would accept it. You don't accept ANYTHING Trump says. It's your blessing and your curse.
Darrell said...
Look Chuck. On Saturday the Park Service gave an estimate of 250,000 and Trump responded to that and said he didn't think it was that low.
No, it didn't. The National Park Service, by act of Congress in the 1990's, stopped making crowd estimates. But it doesn't even matter. Where exactly did that Trump-claim come from? Trump said that he saw a "network" claiming that the crowd was 250,000. Which one? Let's look at that.
Later, at the CIA, he said there were 250,000 just in the enclosed area closest to the podium and a million, maybe a million and a half total. That seems reasonable. Two hundred fifty thousand would make it one of the lowest attended Inaugurations in history--and that is not accurate. I would be pissed,too. Do you see the difference in my photo with image that CNN was putting out? I can. CNN is lying.
Stop right there. Link us all, to the CNN "lie." Is CNN the "network" that Trump referred to? I'd like to know, so we can test the truth of Trump's assertion in that regard as well.
And everyone else is holding back their alternate images. Sounds like Journolist concocted the story beforehand and everyone fell in line.
Who, exactly, is "holding back" any images? What do those images show? And how do you know about them?
The Park Service gave up counting, yet they went out of their way to say 250,000 for Trump. That shows me the Lefty assholes work there. Trump's remarks at the CIA were totally on point. And any reasonable prudent person would side with Trump. Most did. Except anti-Trump gits. Trump's popularity numbers rose, so some people must agree.
Mike said...
But really, why does Trump's "it looked like a million" matter? It's not stated as fact. It's the way it felt. Hell it should feel like 60 million were out there. But why does it matter to you what he feels?
{{Sigh}}
Okay, so we're just talking about feelings now. If Trump only "felt" a certain way, then why make a big deal about it -- a decidedly trivial matter -- in front of a nationally sacred wall of honor at CIA headquarters? And why send Sean Spicer in front of an aghast White House Press corps to scold them on some supposed inaccuracy that boils down to mere feelings?
Chuck has no answer for my post. Run away little lawyer who can't debate. Run away!
HE didn't make it a big deal. You did. That's the whole point Man! And you've got no fact to stand on, no lie, no misrepresentation. Just your ego saying you know what Trump saw better than he does. That's ridiculous Man. So I'm ridiculing you for it!
Darrell said...
The Park Service gave up counting, yet they went out of their way to say 250,000 for Trump.
Where? Where did the Park Service do that?
Chuck, do you see a difference in my photo with the other images from CNN and ABC that were shared by commenters on Sunday? Did you look at my link? If not, you are thge asshole I think you are. If you did look and you don't think a million or a million and a half is reasonable, we don't have anything to talk about. Trump never said that his Inauguration was bigger than Obama's or anybody else's.
Mike said...
Chuck has no answer for my post. Run away little lawyer who can't debate. Run away!
What exactly do you want me to answer?
The network talking about it on Saturday (that I listened to) mentioned the Park Service. It was hearsay And the 250K estimate was given. That's what I am going by.
I want you to answer whether or not you looked at my photo.
Looking at this rotatable photo from CNN at the time of the speech, the crowd was as full and far back as it could possibly be in the space allowed. It went all the way up to the temporary building constructed before the Washington Monument. I don't remember such a structure being in place for Obama I, which would allow for a bigger crowd.
One last time Chuck. I've taught special ed classes that didn't take this long to understand a topic.
Mike: But really, why does Trump's "it looked like a million" matter? It's not stated as fact. It's the way it felt... But why does it matter to you what he feels?
THAT question. WHY does it matter so much to you?
Darrell said...
The network talking about it on Saturday (that I listened to) mentioned the Park Service. It was hearsay And the 250K estimate was given. That's what I am going by.
No I want you to quote it; cite it; link it.
And the very particularized reason why you need to do that, is because the detail matters. I do not think that ANY "network" endeavored to "report" that Trump's crowd was only 250,000. I think Trump (and you) heard a reference to the number 250,000 in connection with the number of tickets distributed, and garbled all of it into an idea that sounded to him like disrespect. That basic reporting was completely correct. There were 250,000 tickets for distribution. Review whatever you want, about that reporting. I don't care. I mention it only because that is where I think the number came from. Trump's claimed (about the "network" report) number.
Later!
Mike;
Trump is the guy who made a big deal out of crowd size. Trump is the guy who took a minor story and made it a major story. In the process, Trump once again diminished his own credibility, and his general reputation for stability.
Trump, I fear, is screwing up issues that I care about. For instance, we movement Republicans care greatly about election law reform. The arguments are always hotly contested. They need to be fought very carefully.
But now Trump comes along and says to the world that he thinks that one or two or three million people voted illegally in the 2016 general election. I don't want a leader to say anything so stupid. It just makes us a target for righteous criticism from the left. Like the way that we were ridiculed as racist rubes, because Trump, as some sort of putative "Republican," was claiming that something was amiss with Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Trump makes me feel like a fan of the team who just had a star player traded onto their roster. But that star was arrested in his first season for drunk driving, sexual assault and tax evasion.
I share George Will's concern that Trump's victory could do permanent damage to the Republican Party.
Fuck off, Chuck. I see a lot and I'm not going to look it up. Do a Google search. The photos they were showing at the Daily Mail, BBC, and CNN on Saturday had a lot of empty space in them. The first photo CNN put up had an EXIF embedded timestamp of 9:00AM and they were called out by people (commenters) at DM.
You still didn't say whether you looked at my photo or not. That proves you are a disingenuous asshole not worth talking to. Don't address any more comments to me.
Chuck has spotted SQUIRREL!
Only the squirrel is a PURPLE ELEPHANT.
This is NOT one of the things I read, but it is an example of the kind of thing that was available on Saturday and the outright lie about the Trump crowd, including a deceptive picture that they attribute to CNN. Compare their image with mine.
http://hollywoodlife.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-donald-trump-inauguration-crowds-washington-pics/
Darrell I see your photo. What do you expect me to say about it? It is a picture that shows a lot of people. I don't know what "a million and a half" people looks like. And neither does Donald Trump, obviously.
I didn't make a big deal about this. Mostly nobody would have been talking about last Saturday, expect Trump went off on it, and then had his press secretary do something that bordered on "stunt" later that same day, all devoted to the notion that the media "lied" about the Inaugural crowd size.
I asked you a pretty simple question, Darrell. Point us to the media lie. The "network," that Trump claims reported his crowd at 250,000 people. I don't think you can, because I think that Trump was himself lying about that.
Darrell that post is from 9:02 pm Saturday night. If it is 9:02 pm Pacific time, then it is even later, obviously. Long past the time when Trump and Sean Spicer had blown this whole issue up.
And it has nothing to do with the "network" report that sent Trump bouncing off walls Saturday morning.
And oh by the way, Darrell, what is the "lie" in that "hollywoodlife.com" webpage?
Chuck cannot understand why the PURPLE ELEPHANT is under discussion. However between the manic masturbation, furious googling and intense need to discuss PURPLE ELEPHANTS, Chuck is sure to find an answer.
Vexing.
The lie is the picture of Trump's Inauguration showing the Mall half-empty. Are you that dishonest? My pic is the minute Trump walked to the podium and the space is filled. The space can't be filled and half-empty at the same time.
Schrödinger’s Mall?
How big was the crowd at Hillary's inauguration? That's the only comparison that matters.
"Mostly white, uneducated and easy to command."
What if Trump's inauguration crowd had been bigger than Obama's?
From fake news to fantasy news!
Nuremberg Rally
Darrell said...
The lie is the picture of Trump's Inauguration showing the Mall half-empty. Are you that dishonest? My pic is the minute Trump walked to the podium and the space is filled. The space can't be filled and half-empty at the same time.
See; we can talk about when photos were taken, and which angles were chosen, and the technical challenges of making overall crowd sizes. Those are discussable, debatable things.
That's not what Trump does; he almost never does that. Trump is a salesman (I hate salesmen) full of hyperbole and bluster. So Trump doesn't say the accurate thing which is that he questions the validity and methodology of crowd estimations. (And I am still waiting for anyone to show me where a "network" made a crowd estimation of 250,000 ad Trump claimed.) No; Trump goes out and first mischaracterizes the "network" and then further says that it looked like a million or a million and half people to him.
Chuck: "See; we can talk about when photos were taken, and which angles were chosen, and the technical challenges of making overall crowd sizes. Those are discussable, debatable things."
Thought Cloud over Chuck's head:
Of course, I'm not going to debate those things. I'm going to ignore those things. I'm going to head fake at reasonableness and the press forward with my obligatory and easily dismissed nonsense. In fact, I'm just going to criticize Trump some more. I'm not going to acknowledge that the picture from the podium at the time of the ceremony shows a full National Mall. I'm not going to admit the networks were using pictures that CANNOT be from the same time as the crowds cannot be squared despite camera angle defenses that might exist but which EVEN I, Chuck, who supports all things anti-Trump, am not foolish enough to attempt.
Me: You're an insufferable, dishonest status quo buffoon.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा