Trump Inauguration Crowd Size, a Media Deception

So we have to be racist, want to deport Mexican immigrants (even ones who came here as children and know no other life), want to demonize and exclude Muslims, etc in order to not hate our nation? I mean you are right America does have an incredibly racist history. So in order to unreservedly love America, you kind of would have to love racism. However that is intellectually bankrupt behavior. You shouldn't love anything unreservedly, especially not a country!!

 

That's what I suspect. You said it well. Not to mention that Democrats are the party of boycotts. Oh well. Not to worry. Like Trump said, "now the fun begins".

 

I have no idea what you're making up now. The pictures, side by side, taken from the exact same place, show far larger crowds for Obama in 2009 than for Trump in 2017

 

Do you think if Trump were the first White president his numbers would be higher?

 

Here's more:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/...-that-obamas-inauguration-crowds-were-bigger/

Media very interested today in pointing out that Obama’s inauguration crowds were bigger
POSTED AT 8:41 PM ON JANUARY 20, 2017 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

Share on Facebook 507 507 SHARES
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen not just garden-variety liberals but major news outlets circulating these side-by-side shots on social media today, or ones of the grandstands empty at various points on the parade route. The charitable explanation is that the crowd-size comparison is a security blanket for them in a moment of fear. They’re depressed and terrified at their near-term electoral prospects so they’re reminding themselves that they still have — or had — the numbers to win. The less charitable explanation is that it’s pure spite at Trump’s expense, knowing that he’s probably going to claim that he had the biggest crowds of all time no matter what the evidence says. When your opponent is on a seemingly unstoppable roll, you’ll seize on anything to take him down a peg.

To give Obama his due, it’s no surprise that his 2008 crowd was easily the largest ever. He received the most votes of any presidential candidate in history that year, a record that still stands. He succeeded a president whose job approval had cratered, so he was greeted with jubilation by everyone not a part of the activist right. And of course he was the first black president, whose inauguration was historic beyond the usual reasons. It’ll be a long time before any president meets that benchmark of excitement. But Democrats have institutional reasons for drawing bigger crowds in Washington too. It’s a heavily Democratic city; it stands to reason that inaugurating a Democratic president will draw many more local onlookers than inaugurating someone from the other party would. Politifact has a list of crowd estimates for inaugurals since Reagan:

Barack Obama, 2013: 1 million

Barack Obama, 2009: 1.8 million (generally considered a record for people on the National Mall)

George W. Bush, 2005: 400,000

George W. Bush, 2001: 300,000

Bill Clinton, 1997: 250,000

Bill Clinton, 1993: 800,000

George H.W. Bush, 1989: 300,000

Ronald Reagan, 1985: 140,000 tickets sold, but record cold moved the swearing-in ceremony indoors

Ronald Reagan, 1981: 10,000, according to the New York Times. This was the first year the ceremony was performed on the west side of the Capitol.
Obama’s in a class by himself but note that Bill Clinton’s first inaugural after 12 years of Republican rule wasn’t far off the pace of O’s second inaugural even though the country’s population was much larger by 2012. The best numbers for a Republican are only half what Clinton drew. Democratic locals are going to turn out for Democrats; a city packed with federal workers is going to turn out for candidates who support bigger government payrolls; and D.C.’s many black residents were surely understandably eager to see the first black president sworn in. If the inauguration were held in, say, Salt Lake City, the partisan dynamics to all of this would be much different. Add to that the fact that it was rainy today in D.C. and there are bound to be lots of people who stayed home but would have turned out in better conditions. And even with all of that working against him, Trump did fine crowd-wise. One informal estimate put the size at 250,000, but another noted that the number of Metro trips made this morning was on par with the number made for Bush’s second inaugural, which would put Trump in line for the biggest crowd for a Republican president ever.

In other stupid media criticism today, Katy Tur of NBC couldn’t help noticing that Trump reserved his praise for Hillary Clinton for the post-inaugural luncheon, not the inauguration speech itself. Um, since when do presidents applaud the losing candidate in their inauguration addresses? That’s a speech about their vision for the country, not a shout-out to the eminences in the crowd.

 

What?...Your post does not make any sense at all...And again, I wish for a dislike option...

 

The time lapse video was posted on Youtube on the day of the inauguration. So only those that think the poster of the video had the foresight to predict Trump's outburst over crowd sizes would think it was fake, the video is not fake.

 

Did you actually bother to read the link that 'your' side posted?

 

Rubbish. Overexposed or not lighter areas will still show as lighter than anything dark upon them. Furthermore there is really nothing to indicate anything other than it being an accurately exposed photograph. Are you a photographer? I am. Accusations of photo-shopping need more than just your opinion.

 

Typo, it should have said in case not I. But let me break it down for you. Plenty of people on both sides are petty enough. Look no fury than this thread as proof or the NYT. It isn't rocket science.

As for your dislike option send a request to the site owner instead of just crying about it.

 

As opposed to countless numbers of leftists, whom all too often eagerly generate the appearance of hating their nation unreservedly? Sweet!

 

Fury?...I have none at all...I am simply an ex-pat who finds Trump to be what he is...I am glad to not have to deal with him at all...I did my time...I served over 20 years in the Navy, and another 20 as a professor attempting to...Well, I can't say it...Trump's 'students' are beyond redemption...

 

I'm sure they don't want your redemption just as I didn't need the resume. If you have a problem with typos you should probably stay off the internet.

 

The deception was Spicer and the Blonde Bimbo KellyAnne. Spicer lied and Kelly Anne made a Nazi Goebels or "1984" like statement when she said that Spicer was giving "alternative facts".

We are seeing 1984 in 2017 with "war is peace", "up is down",

 

'Typos'...Interesting...Have you ever been to the city of your avatar?...

 

Lol...No deception. Trump was butt hurt that his inaugural crowd was smaller than the protest crowd against him and he whined and lied about it, as he always does.
Trying to polish all the turds that trump (*)(*)(*)(*)s out is becoming a full-time job for his supporters.

 

Correct!
Truth is truth ... but if truth is not liked by Trump, truth has a problem!

 

Seriously?

WHO CARES!

Besides maybe Donald Trump.

 

Again, why do you keep trying to defend why there weren't that many people there ? Thats not the point, nor whats up for debate.

Debating the "color of the tarps", or "the exposure of the camera" is beyond ridiculous. The pictures are OBVIOUS !!!! Thats not directed at you personally Blues, but this "debate" on the number of people who watched the debate is beyond ridiculous. Trump's hubris has again caused him to put his foot in his mouth, and then he doubles down on what are obviously untrue statements, and then his supporters actually defend it.

 

Seriously ? Still trying to justify ?

LET IT GO, he was wrong, he lied, time to move on !!!!

 

The media isn't doing ANYTHING except calling out Trumps lie. Why cant you accept that Trump is the one who lied. This and the other 3 lies would be a NON-ISSUE had Trump not made the lies. Stop trying to blame the "media" for what Trump does. Its getting embarrassing

 

DC's black population didn't have to go far to see Obama's inauguration. This is an obvious advantage. Anyway, I don't really care. Obama's inauguration was special. There's no need to marginalize it or compare to Trump's. The whole thing is nonsense.

 

Washington DC is heavily Democrat. The locals would have flooded the streets in 2009 and stayed home in 2017, for party reasons.

It would be better to compare pictures of the Reagan / Bush / Clinton inaugurations, if such exist.

 

I've argued for years that Obama is the closest thing to a religious experience that many left-wing atheists are ever going to have. They've replaced religious belief with adherence to charismatic left-wing leaders, like we have seen in many communist countries in the past. It shouldn't be a surprise that Obama drew a larger crowd.

 

Lol...Polishing trump's turds will consume all the free time of those on the right for years to come.