It doesn't matter who started the crowd size comparison

It goes to the essence of the political immaturity of the left, who continue to feed off sour grapes.

No the story there is Trump's inability to sort truth from lies and distinguish reality from fantasy.

LanDroid wrote:No the story there is Trump's inability to sort truth from lies and distinguish reality from fantasy.

Not defending Trump here. Just pointing out the mass stupidity and complete lack of principles that's overtaken the new left.

Events can be simultaneous.

ant wrote:By the way,

The entire crowd size argument was a stupid embarrassment to the entire nation.
It was started on social media (twitter) by leftwing politically immature adolescents. It was just as silly for Trump to respond to the goading.
It could have easily been handled:

"Not sure of the size of the inauguration, but thank you very much for all who attended. Your continued support means a lot"


OUR CROWD WAS BIGGER THAN YOURS!
This can only be uttered by the mouths of spoiled Americans who know nothing of real political upheaval and turmoil. Particularly that which the US has been responsible for in numerous 3rd world nations for decades.

How do you know that social media twits started the crowd-size brouhaha? I recall seeing the comparison photos--I think it was Obama 2012 vs Trump, in my newspaper. For various reasons, the comparative size of the inaugural crowds was a valid story, a minor one but still a story. Well, check that, because as you say it was really Trump who magnified it into almost major. And he created the embarrassment of all of us having to watch him persist in telling falsehoods.

Social media gets the news first, really. The comparison pics spread like wildfire across the net..

Who still waits for the paper boy to come riding by on his bike to throw news on their porch??
I guess some people still get their news the way people did in the 50s.

In my humble opinion, both sides were equally dumb squabbling about it.

ant wrote:Social media gets the news first, really. The comparison pics spread like wildfire across the net..

Who still waits for the paper boy to come riding by on his bike to throw news on their porch??
I guess some people still get their news the way people did in the 50s.

In my humble opinion, both sides were equally dumb squabbling about it.

Isn't social media usually dependent on media companies when it comes to the work of gathering the news? It's not likely that somebody posted the photos on Instagram, giving birth to the whole story. I think the Park Service took the photos.

I'd like to be agreeable about this, but it was only DT who squabbled. The press reported on his phone call to the Park Service director, asking him for other views of the crowd. The press had no choice at all but to show Spicer coming out to say the crowds were the largest in history. What a way to make his first appearance as press secretary.

I'm in the modern age, ant. My paper boy drives a car. There's something really to be said for getting news this way. It might promote more deliberate thought, avoiding the virality bandwagon. You don't have sound-bites. You have the comics. You have something to lay down for your muddy shoes.

I saw the Trump inaugural crowd story in the NYTimes. It wasn't a particularly significant story until Trump made a big deal out of it. I can think of many boring reasons why Trump's crowd may have been smaller. But Trump can only see it in terms of his own perceived greatness and reality fails to mesh with that egotistical perception. Trump's denial of such basic facts are a much bigger story. This is predictable. Anytime Trump has to deny basic facts it will become news. Just wait, it will happen again.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... crowd.html

Regarding how many bombs Trump will drop, I think a far more likely scenario is that the President's anti-immigrant posture along with anti-Muslim rhetoric will play into radical Islam's hatred of the west and ease us toward a clash of cultures that might otherwise be preventable.

Certainly Obama's use of smart bombs have also created anti-west sentiment, especially when innocent civilians have been killed. It's not an easy situation by any means. Do too little and our enemies will perceive us as weak. Do too much and our enemies will hate us. Obama avoided using the term "Islamic extremist" for good reason. It's not Islam we are at war with, but terror in all of its forms. Trump doesn't seem to understand that nuance. He's like a bull in a china shop in that respect. I think we could have restricted immigration from areas of unrest without so much chaos and controversy. As for deporting illegal immigrants, Obama is far ahead of Trump on this front. Trump talks way too much with bluster and braggadocio, shooting himself in the foot at every turn. There are better ways to accomplish many of his goals to make America safer. Speak softly but carry a big stick is not a bad philosophy. I really doubt that using the term "Islamic extremist" will ultimately help much.

Just a side note:
Obama started two wars WITHOUT congressional authorization - TWO
Where was the outrage from the Democrats?



Good article by a Libertarian legal analyst.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... b3393508f4

According to people like Harry, these past matters are trivial when compared to Trump's nasty talk.

I'm hearing about the general expansion of executive authority, which didn't begin with Obama, but which he is said to have accelerated. That doesn't sound like a good thing to me. It could be the public's frustration with gridlock that inclines it toward favoring a stronger executive. Certainly Trump was elected in part because he promoted himself as the uber-executive, the only one with ability to fix our problems. That is where the fear of authoritarian rule is coming from. Ant seems to think that Obama was given a pass on his own authoritarian moves, and maybe he has a point.

Back to the inauguration crowd controversy for a moment. It might be galling to presidents to see what the media choose to cover, but it has been that way since day one of our free press. Presidents can tie themselves in knots over their coverage, or they can wisely choose to stay above the fray. If they view the press as the enemy, as Nixon did, we know what can happen. President Trump is both unwise and deeply subversive in his labeling of the media as the public's enemy. If he doesn't get with the idea--soon-- that he is there to GOVERN, his tenure will be brief.