2017 Trump Inauguration Thread

Post Reply New Topic

That aerial photo whenever it was taken is clearly not representative of the crowd that was there at the time of the inauguration. I could go find all the pictures of the Mall all the way filled up from multiple angles if really want, it is fake news to suggest Trump drew a small crowd to his inauguration.

I have heard that the National Park Service makes official counts for internal use, but that these are not released to the public. Is that the case? If so, when was that policy implemented and why?

...It appears that the extraordinarily sensitive Trump decided to o to the CIA and whine about how the bad ol, liberal media (BOLM) lied by not eflecting 100% his PR estimate of how many people he got at the inaugural ! Even the highly more subjectively-answerable question of what the weather was when) aabout what the weather was ! he nade hiis speech , Trump proceeded to tell porkies (I,m using a : cute : phrase rather than saying th heavier : lie : , okay ?) about the weaher during the Inaugural Address...and , yes , how filled the Mall was .
Yeah , yeah , I know , it,s : media bias : if you don,t say exactly what somebody,s P.R. agent wants you to say .






e="Jacoby"]

Problem is the MSM gets a lot of its news from social media, it's not anymore reliable that what you see on the internet unless you find the corporations that own that news network more trustworthy for some reason. See CNN and Buzzfeed, it really is the same issue. Media bias is a strategic propaganda campaign, what else would you call it?[/quote]

I don't know about internally but the National Park Service stopped making estimates after the 'Million Man March' led by Louis Farrakhan back in 1995 which apparently was quite a bit less than a million according to the NPS but was heavily contested. Crowd estimates are always controversial and highly politicized it seems.

I would certainly expect them to not release numbers if it made a favored party look bad. But if they have internal numbers that they don't release -- that seems inappropriate to me. Perhaps the solution would be to release a series of official aerial photos taken at different times -- just post the photos on the NPS website and let people do their own counts or whatever they want with them.

...This very argument we,re having here is an , itself elatively mild , example of why the Interior Department doesn,t make offiial estimates of crowd size ! !! Because they want to stay away from : YOU,RE BIASED/YOU,RE A TOOL : , etctera ! !!
A Washington Post story (OK, to pro-Trumpers that,s a red flag , I guess . ) I read toniht on theMercury News,s website but can,t link to says that , after the Million Man March in 1995 according to it , theID stopped giving official etimates oof crowd size .
Bluntly , people , obviously , want their own spin to be : the official version : so that their versin of how little/how many people were at an event becomes (maybe) the fficial version : ! !! !! !! !! !


why the


ee having here is an emple of why tthe










e="Darmok"]

I have heard that the National Park Service makes official counts for internal use, but that these are not released to the public. Is that the case? If so, when was that policy implemented and why?[/quote]

...Jacoby , so you want them to release official nuumbers if it matches your preferred estimate , but if it makes someone you dislike look more popular you,ll complain they,re : biased : ?
?
Perhaps not .
Hwever, as i said above , the arguing here is a smallscale version of why the ID stays away from it ! (It took mme a little more time to get this up , s Jacoby got his , similar , comment about the NPS/ID up first .)














="Darmok"]

I would certainly expect them to not release numbers if it made a favored party look bad. But if they have internal numbers that they don't release -- that seems inappropriate to me. Perhaps the solution would be to release a series of official aerial photos taken at different times -- just post the photos on the NPS website and let people do their own counts or whatever they want with them.[/quote]

I'm glad you showed that Jacoby. I was telling my Ma it looked full to me.

I've interpreted these photos differently. I believe what you interpret as "forced" perspective is actually the opposite of your contention.

The "difference" we observe is actually created by the use of a wider angle lens, from approximately the same position. That the lens is wider is evident from observation of the two groups of trees in the background...One on the left, the other on the right. Please note the lens in the 2017 photo obviously includes a larger area on each side showing the crowd was even larger than the other views, which were made with a tighter lens (actually the type used to force perspective).

Also please notice that the 2017 lens (although tilted slightly downward to include more of the raised area) still shows the area on the other side of the water to be jambed to capacity. So if this is true then it's obvious someone is generating false news about Trump; how original; this would include any unfounded photo shop accusations.

I felt so bad for Spicer having to stand up there and discuss the crowd size comparison for his first address at the podium as press secretary. What a ridiculous issue to speak out about and the manner in which he did so was like a kindergarten teacher scolding his class.

Trump's address to the CIA was even more embarrassing. He needs to stop with these stupid folksy anecdotes about himself and see what's going on around him.

Personally I found Sean Spicer at the press conference to be cringe worthy, because he seemed way too wound up. I think this was a bad choice as Trump's first press conference. It just did not come off well at all.

Here's my theory: The reason why Trump's inauguration had less people show up, was due to all the threats made by the leftist movement. People did not feel it was safe to be there because of this. Many people were very apprehensive as to what degree of insanity the protester/rioters would go to. Many were expecting anything from shots being fired to bombs going off. And that's the reason why there was a smaller turnout. And that's what should have been addressed in my opinion.

Entertainers refusing to perform and less people attending = Leftists threats.

Spicer wouldn't have to do that if the "fake news" media didn't keep bringing up stupid crap. Then it forces the other side to prove them wrong.

I don't know what news you listen too, but Trump was also very supportive of the CIA. Don't know what the problem is.

https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxn ... -sprint-us

A lot of people didn't show because of the death threats and threats with putting poison in the water supply and whatever else. The Leftist media didn't report that crap!

Yeah, but what about the Women's March - a much larger crowd turned out for it.


No one makes the Trump administration respond like pissed off gibbons.


Trump has told the CIA in no uncertain terms that he does not trust the information they provide them with. Then he goes to the CIA, stands in front of their memorial and talks about crowd sizes. For God's sake, could he not just thank them for their service?

...Ezra and Angla: Uh huh . Yeah . A vast array f ceeditable threats against Inauguration attendees. Right .
Spicer as FORCED by the Bad Ol, Librul edia (BALM) to state inaccurate , anyway , things , and they also forced thhe Donald to deny what he said just days back denouncing the intelligence people .
Yeah , considering just the growing number of places to watch it , as well as the growing population - Just as every other Super Bowl seems to become the most-watched TV broadcast of all time (In America anyway .) , it may well be !

Crazies turned out for it. I wouldn't want to be a part of it. No one seems to even know what they are protesting.