By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The white grass protective mats drew peoples eyes to the area. This is the first time they have been used. Buy two bags of jelly babies, mark out two areas on your lawn (pref) patio or carpet, Put something white on one of the areas and sprinkle the jellies over both areas, stand back and see which one stands out.
Despite knowing this the hateful press and other hateful idiots don't care to consider. Why do people love to hate when the man has given up his comfortable life for the love of his country and its people. I despair..
The cares how many were there? Most of the people that need him couldn't afford to travel there.
I'd rather take photographer Alex Wong's Getty Image and accompanying comment to be more honest than a tweet by the Clinton-supporting NYTimes Graphics Department / Binyamin Applebaum.
I'd rather take photographer Alex Wong's Getty Image and accompanying comment to be more honest than a tweet by the Clinton-supporting NYTimes Graphics Department / Binyamin Applebaum.
But people will always believe what they want.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2017 22:07]
You certainly will!
Why would you believe one and not the other? what are our criteria for deciding (that's a genuine question btw)
What are we to make of the time lapse pictures that seem to show the whole area during the whole time and at no time really filling up? Was it doctored in some way?
I'd rather take photographer Alex Wong's Getty Image and accompanying comment to be more honest than a tweet by the Clinton-supporting NYTimes Graphics Department / Binyamin Applebaum.
But people will always believe what they want.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2017 22:07]
Left. Greedy self centred City Majority. Right. The new movement representing all of the people (even those that cannot afford to travel hundreds of miles or time off).
Why would you believe one and not the other? what are our criteria for deciding (that's a genuine question btw)
What are we to make of the time lapse pictures that seem to show the whole area during the whole time and at no time really filling up? Was it doctored in some way?
Good questions.
Getty aren't going to doctor their picture so that the Trump crowd looks bigger than it is. Getty is owned by the Carlyle group which is more likely to be aligned with New York based equity interests. Additionally, it's worth looking on Getty's own site - the picture is the same as I posted.
If that Getty picture is shown alongside another with far fewer people, then I will presume it is taken at a time when fewer people are present.
I haven't seen the time lapse pictures. If you have them, then please show them to me, but my questions prior to viewing them are:
Can you be 100% sure the pictures are taken at regular and frequent enough intervals to ensure the maximum crowd is shown?
Can you be sure that the period shown includes the time of the biggest crowd?
Are times of day visible on the time lapse images?
Finally, and it shouldn't need restating, but I'll do so all the same because some people have a habit of misrepresenting me here: I'm not a supporter of Trump, I'm very very wary of what he has in store for peace in the world. I'm delighted Hillary didn't win. I'm sceptical of all media and that's why I go to extraordinary lengths to dig out every possible angle on just about any news story and am happy to be challenged over anything - that's why I appreciate your post.
Getty aren't going to doctor their picture so that the Trump crowd looks bigger than it is. Getty is owned by the Carlyle group which is more likely to be aligned with New York based equity interests. Additionally, it's worth looking on Getty's own site - the picture is the same as I posted.
If that Getty picture is shown alongside another with far fewer people, then I will presume it is taken at a time when fewer people are present.
I haven't seen the time lapse pictures. If you have them, then please show them to me, but my questions prior to viewing them are:
Can you be 100% sure the pictures are taken at regular and frequent enough intervals to ensure the maximum crowd is shown?
Can you be sure that the period shown includes the time of the biggest crowd?
Are times of day visible on the time lapse images?
Finally, and it shouldn't need restating, but I'll do so all the same because some people have a habit of misrepresenting me here: I'm not a supporter of Trump, I'm very very wary of what he has in store for peace in the world. I'm delighted Hillary didn't win. I'm sceptical of all media and that's why I go to extraordinary lengths to dig out every possible angle on just about any news story and am happy to be challenged over anything - that's why I appreciate your post.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2017 22:34]
Thanks for enticing CIL Vic. Cil, I am not a Trump fan because he is Trump. I am a fan of Trump because of what he has given up and is putting his family through for the sake of the US and eventually the rest of the world by example. Brave Bast@rd. Good man albeit a bit clumsy at the mo.
Getty aren't going to doctor their picture so that the Trump crowd looks bigger than it is. Getty is owned by the Carlyle group which is more likely to be aligned with New York based equity interests. Additionally, it's worth looking on Getty's own site - the picture is the same as I posted.
If that Getty picture is shown alongside another with far fewer people, then I will presume it is taken at a time when fewer people are present.
I haven't seen the time lapse pictures. If you have them, then please show them to me, but my questions prior to viewing them are:
Can you be 100% sure the pictures are taken at regular and frequent enough intervals to ensure the maximum crowd is shown?
Can you be sure that the period shown includes the time of the biggest crowd?
Are times of day visible on the time lapse images?
Finally, and it shouldn't need restating, but I'll do so all the same because some people have a habit of misrepresenting me here: I'm not a supporter of Trump, I'm very very wary of what he has in store for peace in the world. I'm delighted Hillary didn't win. I'm sceptical of all media and that's why I go to extraordinary lengths to dig out every possible angle on just about any news story and am happy to be challenged over anything - that's why I appreciate your post.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2017 22:34]
Appreciate what you say about the Getty pictures. Things is, as far as I can see (pun unintended) is that it isn't just CNN and BBC that show the pictures with less people. The figures from the metro are also nteresting. Or are you really suggesting that there is a media wide plot to undermine him?
Re the time lapse pictures. These were mentioned yesterday I'm surprised you haven't seen them given you comment "that's why I go to extraordinary lengths to dig out every possible angle on just about any news story"! You'll see it on YouTube if you Google in something like ''inauguration time lapse photos'. But no there is no times given and clearly it doesn't show the whole day. But at no time does it show the size crowd Trump claims.
But y, this is all feeding into his hands. The point of concern is that he seems to feel the need to feed his ego with numbers and finds it impossible to suffer any question of his unverified claims. Not very big of him, and doesn't fill me with confidence in his leadership and judgement. Further evidence to me of his bullying nature. He's not used to someone standing up to him and he simply tries (and usually succeeds it seems) to bully his way through.
Appreciate what you say about the Getty pictures. Things is, as far as I can see (pun unintended) is that it isn't just CNN and BBC that show the pictures with less people. The figures from the metro are also nteresting. Or are you really suggesting that there is a media wide plot to undermine him?
Re the time lapse pictures. These were mentioned yesterday I'm surprised you haven't seen them given you comment "that's why I go to extraordinary lengths to dig out every possible angle on just about any news story"! You'll see it on YouTube if you Google in something like ''inauguration time lapse photos'. But no there is no times given and clearly it doesn't show the whole day. But at no time does it show the size crowd Trump claims.
But y, this is all feeding into his hands. The point of concern is that he seems to feel the need to feed his ego with numbers and finds it impossible to suffer any question of his unverified claims. Not very big of him, and doesn't fill me with confidence in his leadership and judgement. Further evidence to me of his bullying nature. He's not used to someone standing up to him and he simply tries (and usually succeeds it seems) to bully his way through.
Thanks for enticing CIL Vic. Cil, I am not a Trump fan because he is Trump. I am a fan of Trump because of what he has given up and is putting his family through for the sake of the US and eventually the rest of the world by example. Brave Bast@rd. Good man albeit a bit clumsy at the mo.
"enticing CIL", not sure what that means.
I'm happy to give Trump a fair go. I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm not a Trump enemy either, yet. I despise Clinton.
Presently, I don't really trust Trump. Unlike Americans, I don't really care if he makes America great again or not. I'm sure he'll do wonders for the US car industry and manufacturing in general. Good for him and good for America. Despite all this, I suspect that whatever good he does he'll always be vilified by the media. Trump won't win a second term and I believe it's in the the elite's interests to keep the population divided.
I'm more interested in looking at things from a geopolitical standpoint and his foreign policy objectives make little sense to me. The heat has been taken off Syria for now - though it's still ongoing but not being reported as it was in December.
The whole friend of Russia thing is a giant charade. Yes he'll do deals with Russia, and yes the western press will be up in arms about Putin's "agent". All nonsense. No, his job is to weaken Russia and China's relationship. This was also the case during Obama's presidency but Obama tried it the other way round, alienating Russia more and befriending China more than Trump will. It really is all a game, and I'm pretty sure Trump's in on it too. FWIW, I don't think Putin and Xi will fall for it either but I think efforts will be made to weaken their friendship.
That said, everything I've said may be way way off the mark. Until the picture clears a little, I'll praise Trump for every bomb he doesn't drop on Syria, for every dollar he holds back from NATO and for every effort he makes to relax tensions with Russia.
I'd rather take photographer Alex Wong's Getty Image and accompanying comment to be more honest than a tweet by the Clinton-supporting NYTimes Graphics Department / Binyamin Applebaum.
But people will always believe what they want.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2017 22:07]
so you really are going to reject the evidence. it's not a question of 'people will believe what they want' the evidence is extremely clear.
your wong getty picture is compared half way down this article. you need to spend sometime looking at the 2009 satellite picture to work out where the white structure is which is shown at the back of the wong picture. it is where where the building on the right of the satellite image presses in slightly with a kink in the roadway on the right of the satellite image. in 2009 a large proportion of the crowd was still further away beyond the 2017 white structure. the wong picture is therefore of a much smaller area and at a different angle - it doesn't even capture the washington monument.
it's not a question of believe what you want the photographic evidence is conclusive.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
I'd rather take photographer Alex Wong's Getty Image and accompanying comment to be more honest than a tweet by the Clinton-supporting NYTimes Graphics Department / Binyamin Applebaum.
Appreciate what you say about the Getty pictures. Things is, as far as I can see (pun unintended) is that it isn't just CNN and BBC that show the pictures with less people. The figures from the metro are also nteresting. Or are you really suggesting that there is a media wide plot to undermine him?
Re the time lapse pictures. These were mentioned yesterday I'm surprised you haven't seen them given you comment "that's why I go to extraordinary lengths to dig out every possible angle on just about any news story"! You'll see it on YouTube if you Google in something like ''inauguration time lapse photos'. But no there is no times given and clearly it doesn't show the whole day. But at no time does it show the size crowd Trump claims.
But y, this is all feeding into his hands. The point of concern is that he seems to feel the need to feed his ego with numbers and finds it impossible to suffer any question of his unverified claims. Not very big of him, and doesn't fill me with confidence in his leadership and judgement. Further evidence to me of his bullying nature. He's not used to someone standing up to him and he simply tries (and usually succeeds it seems) to bully his way through.
To be fair, "media wide" isn't very wide - it's not as if we're dealing with 10's (let alone 100's) of media players. So why not? the media will all be out for him - but I think it's all a game to keep the US population divided. Ruling a nation of 300 million potential gun owners is easier that way.
You shouldn't be surprised I didn't dig out the time lapse photos. I'm not going to dig for things I don't know exist.
"But no there is no times given and clearly it doesn't show the whole day." - well, that speaks volumes to me. Why not authenticate the video beyond doubt by showing the whole day?
It might be feeding into his hands - it really is all a game. A critical press (rather than the subservient one that Obama had) looks oh so much more democratic.
I'm not going along with all this talk of him being a petulant bully. He's an actor, as much as Reagan was. Enjoy the show.
To be fair, "media wide" isn't very wide - it's not as if we're dealing with 10's (let alone 100's) of media players. So why not? the media will all be out for him - but I think it's all a game to keep the US population divided. Ruling a nation of 300 million potential gun owners is easier that way.
You shouldn't be surprised I didn't dig out the time lapse photos. I'm not going to dig for things I don't know exist.
"But no there is no times given and clearly it doesn't show the whole day." - well, that speaks volumes to me. Why not authenticate the video beyond doubt by showing the whole day?
It might be feeding into his hands - it really is all a game. A critical press (rather than the subservient one that Obama had) looks oh so much more democratic.
I'm not going along with all this talk of him being a petulant bully. He's an actor, as much as Reagan was. Enjoy the show.
Check out my edit - PBS isn't to be ignored. The still has the time on it. I don't think they are going to distort things.
your wong getty picture is compared half way down this article. you need to spend sometime looking at the 2009 satellite picture to work out where the white structure is which is shown at the back of the wong picture. it is where where the building on the right of the satellite image presses in slightly with a kink in the roadway on the right of the satellite image. in 2009 a large proportion of the crowd was still further away beyond the 2017 white structure. the wong picture is therefore of a much smaller area and at a different angle - it doesn't even capture the washington monument.
it's not a question of believe what you want the photographic evidence is conclusive.
OK, fair enough.
I'm happy to accept Obama had a far bigger turn out in 2009. I was an Obama fan in 2009 too.
It's interesting that they don't show his 2013 inauguration as well. Perhaps there were a lot fewer people present. Perhaps like me, a lot of people were no longer Obama fans 4 years later.
The whole thing's hilarious. Trump wins the election. The press is apparently banging the drums for his head already - some reports say that 2/3 of the population don't want him - perhaps that was the whole point of the silly photo comparison. Who knows?
Last month the US was preaching to the recently defeated leader of Gambia after he lost the election - telling him that he's in danger of undermining democracy by not respecting the results. Seems like a pretty hypocritical show from the Americans when it happens at home.
I really don't care about crowd numbers - I'm just trying to get my head round the ridiculous reaction to Trump being elected fuelled by the media - practically the whole media. A grown up country would respect the results of such a democracy.
I'm happy to accept Obama had a far bigger turn out in 2009. I was an Obama fan in 2009 too.
It's interesting that they don't show his 2013 inauguration as well. Perhaps there were a lot fewer people present. Perhaps like me, a lot of people were no longer Obama fans 4 years later.
The whole thing's hilarious. Trump wins the election. The press is apparently banging the drums for his head already - some reports say that 2/3 of the population don't want him - perhaps that was the whole point of the silly photo comparison. Who knows?
Last month the US was preaching to the recently defeated leader of Gambia after he lost the election - telling him that he's in danger of undermining democracy by not respecting the results. Seems like a pretty hypocritical show from the Americans when it happens at home.
I really don't care about crowd numbers - I'm just trying to get my head round the ridiculous reaction to Trump being elected fuelled by the media - practically the whole media. A grown up country would respect the results of such a democracy.
It's theatre.
The whole world is now gripped. The media are frightened to death. Good start :) We have as a species been pathetic for far to long. Times they are a changing.
Check out my edit - PBS isn't to be ignored. The still has the time on it. I don't think they are going to distort things.
While PBS have a perfectly good motive to distort things, I don't think they did.
Like I said to Lowhouse, "fine, lots more people at Obama's first inauguration".
But what's the point of all this?
I don't think down republican/democrat or Trump lover/hater lines, so my question is sincere: Why is US politics such a circus? The months before the election were a circus. The time between the election and the inauguration was a circus and it goes on.
The press appears to be the circus master and all the actors are playing along just perfectly. What the hell is going on? Looks like someone is trying to con the masses into thinking some sort of democracy is going on - despite the fact that the presidential run in was between two hugely disliked and highly polarising individuals. Some democracy!
The whole world is now gripped. The media are frightened to death. Good start :) We have as a species been pathetic for far to long. Times they are a changing.
I hope they are Lego, but I'm not very hopeful - though I'm always positive . The whole of the west's democracies seem to be either run by leaders which didn't win an election, or by those who don't have 50% of the popular vote and are very polarising figures.
Will we see more of the same in France, Germany and the Netherlands over the next few months?
I'm happy to accept Obama had a far bigger turn out in 2009. I was an Obama fan in 2009 too.
It's interesting that they don't show his 2013 inauguration as well. Perhaps there were a lot fewer people present. Perhaps like me, a lot of people were no longer Obama fans 4 years later.
The whole thing's hilarious. Trump wins the election. The press is apparently banging the drums for his head already - some reports say that 2/3 of the population don't want him - perhaps that was the whole point of the silly photo comparison. Who knows?
Last month the US was preaching to the recently defeated leader of Gambia after he lost the election - telling him that he's in danger of undermining democracy by not respecting the results. Seems like a pretty hypocritical show from the Americans when it happens at home.
I really don't care about crowd numbers - I'm just trying to get my head round the ridiculous reaction to Trump being elected fuelled by the media - practically the whole media. A grown up country would respect the results of such a democracy.
It's theatre.
you're missing the point. the only issue, the only reason any of this is being discussed, is that trump and his press secretary lied. not a little lie, not a difference in interpretation, not an error or a misspeaking, they stood up and said black is white. they said 'this is white' while pointing to the black object. it was a whopper, and they knew it was a whopper and they kept on saying it. this isn't campaign rhetoric or bellicose bragging it's asking people to ignore what they can see with their own eyes.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
you're missing the point. the only issue, the only reason any of this is being discussed, is that trump and his press secretary lied. not a little lie, not a difference in interpretation, not an error or a misspeaking, they stood up and said black is white. they said 'this is white' while pointing to the black object. it was a whopper, and they knew it was a whopper and they kept on saying it. this isn't campaign rhetoric or bellicose bragging it's asking people to ignore what they can see with their own eyes.
Lowhouse, it's all theatre and you know it is. Stop pretending the press are earnest truth seekers impartially exposing politicians of all stripes when they lie and generally holding them to account.
Lowhouse, it's all theatre and you know it is. Stop pretending the press are earnest truth seekers impartially exposing politicians of all stripes when they lie and generally holding them to account.
again you're just trying to promote the 'they're all as bad as each other, you can't believe anyone' line. the anything goes approach to truth and facts. most mainstream news journalism is to an extremely high standard and relies on hard evidence. if you disagree with it, challenge the evidence. the fact that you disagree with it is not a reason to abandon the use of evidence or to rely on opinion and hearsay as an alternative.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
