The thread this was in seems to have disappeared. Not sure why.
Anyway, for the benefit of those who seem to be in denial, I've outlined some facts about the inauguration..
I've deliberately excluded anything that cannot be objectively determined, and I've contrasted each fact with the claim made by the Trump administration.
Trump spokesperson: "This was the first time in our nation's history that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the Mall. That had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past the grass eliminated this visual".
Fact: the same floor covering was usd in 2013: Here is a news report from that time: "With just four days to go before the Inauguration, caretakers of the National Mall are rushing to preserve the grass. Huge crowds four years ago virtually destroyed the grounds. Starting Friday morning, crews will put down thousands of plastic sheets over six-and-a-half acres of new grass on the Mall. The terraplas, as it's called, sits inches above the grass, allowing light and water to pass through. This multi-million dollar project will take two days to complete".
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local … 01631.html
In fact a combination of teraplas, arena panels and LD panels were used.
Here is the online company that sells the protective covering, confirming it is white: http://www.covermaster.com/News/Nationa … aplas.html
And here is a photo from their online catalog showing it laid down for the "57th Presidential Inauguration", i.e. Obama's second inauguration which happened in 2013.
And here is the company that installed it in 2013.
http://www.eps.net/en-us/event/news-and … monies-20/
And here is another photo of the ground protection installed in 2013, from the company that installed it:
The caption for this photo reads: "100,000 square feet of ground cover from eps america protected the National Mall during President Obama’s second inauguration in January."
And here is the National Park Servcice permit for the 2013 innauguration event which authorizes the use of ground protection, specifically teraplas:
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/upload … s-2012.pdf
Trump spokesperson: "420,000" used the D.C. Metro on Jan. 20, 2017
Fact: On Jan 20 2017: 570,557 trips were taken between 4 a.m - midnight. In 2013, 782,000 trips were taken.
Trump spokesperson: 317,000 trips were taken in 2013.
Fact: that figure is for trips as of 11 a.m. Using the same timeframe, 193,000 trips were taken for the Trump inauguration in 2017.
Here is the Tweet from the official feed of DC Metro: https://twitter.com/wmata/status/822482330346487810
Breakdown of rider figures for previous inaugurations (trips between 4 a.m - midnight on top, trips as of 11am on bottom):
Jan. 20, 2017 (Trump inaugural)
Jan. 21, 2013* (Obama inaugural)
Jan. 20, 2009 (Obama inaugural)
Jan. 20, 2005 (Bush inaugural)
So which of these specific facts do you dispute?
Why dispute any of them? What makes it worth the effort - why do any of them matter at all?
You tell me. Trump supporters on this forum, and the Trump administration, raised the issue. It was deemed so important that Trump's spokesperson made a special statement in the White House.
Seeing as it has been raised, I'd like to establish the facts.
When Rep. John Lewis said he'd never boycotted an inauguration before, Trump said he was "wrong (or lying)" because he had in fact boycotted a previous inauguration.
So do you accept that the Trump administration is wrong (or lying) when it says that ground protection has never been used before at an inauguration?
And do you accept that the Trump administration is wrong (or lying) when it says more people used the metro during the Trump inaugural than the Obama inaugural?
I have also heard that the women's march attendance rather than 200,000, was closer to 500,000 in DC alone. The participants are not just coming out for a powwow to just return home without action plans for the future.
The "Resurgent Left" is the equivalent of the Tea Party and has been created as an organization in response to Donald Trump and the arrogant and strident Right wing. So, while the Empire Strikes Back, the resistance will be in full force, you can count on it.
OK. But you do recognize that you can work a lifetime checking and disproving just one years worth of lies from politicians and not cover a tenth of them? Wouldn't the time be better spent proving those things that actually matter? Things like global warming, or the ACA saving money?
I couldn't possibly care less that a ground cover was used before 2017. But I DO care, a great deal, about the costs of the ACA. About the roots of the depression. About global warming.
I'm sure there are many who share your lack of caring about metro figures and ground covering, but that isn't the issue.
The White House has no business insinuating that any fact critical or unflattering to Trump is wrong. Neither does it have any business creating "alternative facts" and suggesting the White House can sometimes "disagree with facts". Facts are facts. You can't create your own just because you don't like reality.
The size of the inauguration crowd is what it is. Every indication suggests the crowd was smaller than in 2013 and 2009, and smaller than the number of people attending the women's march. The fact that the White House spokesperson had to defend Trumps fragile ego, by giving false information is extremely concerning.
And as Credence suggests, this does not bode well for the reliability of more important information the administration will be disclosing in the future.
Now I wonder which of the vocal Trump supporters is willing to accept that the Trump administration got its facts wrong here.
If the Trump administration propaganda ministers can'tspin this without facts getting in the way, what other mechanisms do they have in store to muzzle information that is not flattering?
It is a harbinger, that is why it matters.
LOL This is harbinger of recognizing that politicians lie. And they make mistakes as well. And that they will exaggerate whenever they feel it makes them look good.
And that others will instantly declare those mistakes and exaggerations as intentional lies.
Nothing, then, that isn't already known and expected.
No, he's not a normal politician; he doesn't fit the mold very well at all.
But that has nothing to do with politicians in general, including Trump lying. Nor with wasting time in minutia, on lies that just...don't...matter.
Nor with people making statements that just aren't true, either. Such as "His followers think he's environmentalist b/c, by golly,". Or was that just another "alternative fact", no better or different than the exaggerations and tall tales Trump and other politicians put out?
LOL - messed up that whole post!
Was trying to put in pic that was on front of Yahoo (yeah, they're a joke) but it was the WH trying to explain away Trump's absurd version of the above issue. Course, the WH trying to explain Trump will soon be a daily exercise. The point is his lies are so constant and so blatant and combined with him threatening the media (whose role it is to dig out corruption, etc. in government) we're headed into very dangerous territory - one I don't think most Americans are even thinking about.
This link explains it far better than I do - why Trump's lying IS so dangerous:
(yes, it's tyt but that doesn't change the facts and the guy bashes Ds and Rs)
Yeah, yeah. Trump has a psychological condition that makes his lies more dangerous than those of other politicians. He's also flat out insane and must be committed if you search the internet long enough.
But maybe I get it after all. Until now I haven't understood the massive furor over something that just doesn't matter, but it isn't about correcting lies or even errors, is it? It's about demonizing someone you don't like - someone you wish to cause harm to. I'd hoped the mud slinging was over after the election, but here it is, just by the citizenry rather than the political opponent. At least HP gives you the option of deleting your own misstatements, doesn't it?
For me, though, I'll stick to things like discussion of getting rid of the TPP or the requirement that young people refusing to purchase overpriced insurance not be fined or prosecuted any more. A little more important, IMHO, than finding fault with silly statements that have nothing to do with anything I care about. And it's something Trump actually did.
Yeah, Trump does have numerous psychiatric problems - hilarious (or maybe it's scary) his cult-like followers seem to miss them.
Wrong. Meant to edit b/c the pic was so messed up and ended up deleting b/c it just seemed easier to do so. I don't venture into the forums very often and they've changed the way they are set up since I was last here. But ASSUME whatever you please. Bad habit you seem to have.
Wrong. There was actually a time I was going to vote for Trump b/c I HATE Hillary . . . . but then he got Pence as his VP (another loon) and I began reading enough to realize Trump is a hardwired nut who will never change, whether the president or not - and that was it. But there are still things I agree with him on - the TPP for example. I just don't think he has Americans' best interests at heart - it's all about him (part of his psychoses).
Too bad the entire issue at stake here is obviously way beyond your sphere of comprehension.
"Yeah, Trump does have numerous psychiatric problems - hilarious (or maybe it's scary) his cult-like followers seem to miss them. "
I trust you can point to a public examination and evaluation by a licensed psychiatrist that has violated his Hippocratic oath in making the information public? No? Then your statement is false and a lie. Just more "alternative facts", supporting the assumption that the goal is to sling mud, nothing else.
Which politician do you honestly think has Americans' best interests at heart?
But I did "get it"! I fully understand it! Coverings on the grass are only useful to declare Trump insane, not to actually discuss (unless we're the groundskeepers).
Nope, can’t produce an examination and evaluation but apparently these three psychiatrists thought the issue serious enough that they wrote to Obama about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-g … 93174.html
And Joseph Navarro, one of the FBI’s top profilers and founding member of their elite Behavioral Analysis Unit, had this to say:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/w … nald-trump
And of course, for anyone who isn’t willfully blind, it’s PAINFULLY obvious. Lol, per your line of reasoning, I suppose Jeffrey Dahmer, with all the human parts found in his apartment, couldn’t really be considered insane until he’d actually had an evaluation. Okey-dokey . . . .
“Which politician do you honestly think has Americans' best interests at heart?” You mean between HRC and Trump? Neither.
What?!?! No, trampled grass is not the issue at stake here . . . .
Which politician has America's best interests at heart: Bernie Sanders.
Politcians in general? When compared with the rest of the swamp critters? Sanders absolutely . . . even though I feel he was a total sellout when it came to HRC. Guess we're getting off-topic . . . .
Well, you got me there. I might even agree, although I DO find that the "best interests" is not what he thinks it is. Even though he's pretty obviously playing the political game now.
That's one out of 537 in Washington. Any others?
Well, you have me at an impasse as well. It is to say that Trump is not a 'politician', yet he seems to be fitting well into that mold and it has not even been a week.
I expect Bernie and all of those on the left side of the political divide to resist Trump and his henchmen. I stand with them in this objective. I say that Bernie was honest but did not feed into right wing dogma and that was why you disapproved of him.
I was hoping that Trump would not end up fawning over the dangling appendages of the GOP apparatchics, but he is not smart enough to be the true populist maverick rather than be a useful idiot tool for the worse of the Republican schemes. Once that is revealed, the gloves come off as far as I am concerned.
Donald Trump is not a politician. President Trump, by definition, most certainly is. And if he expects to accomplish anything at all in the office he will have to descend into the pit and work there at least part of the time.
I truly hope that Bernie does NOT "resist" what Trump does for the sole reason it is a conservative action or came from Trump. I really do expect more of that single politician - I expect him to work for the nation, not the Democratic party.
That Trump shares some, or many, of the goals and ideals of the Republican party should not be a surprise. That you would expect different IS a surprise, but that's all. But that doesn't mean that he is just another party puppet - his inaugural speech made that one pretty plain.
But we all know that 'talk is cheap' and that action speaks louder than words, right?
I did not see this sort of Kumbaya cooperation from the opposition party during the Obama administration? It is a little late for these overtures at this point.
I expect Bernie to be an advocate for the best interests of the country not Trump nor the Republican Party who are naturally opposed to that concept.
"I did not see this sort of Kumbaya cooperation from the opposition party during the Obama administration? It is a little late for these overtures at this point."
To the liberal mind, I think you're right. It is too late to form a congress that cares about the country, it is too late to elect politicians that don't put their own lives as the priority, and it is too late to ever work with anyone not of the same bent political concept. "They were mean to me so I will be mean back, and if it hurts the country, oh well." But some of still have hopes they can be educated, trained to act as adults rather than selfish, cruel children under strict control by the party. That one day they will do their job rather than the dictates of the political elite.
But of course the "best interests of the country" are all expensive, liberal programs that serve to cement political power at the expense of the people. Unfortunate, that, isn't it?
From the reactionary, rightwing perspective of thought it is considered an opportune moment that militaristic, plutocratic hegemony is going to have sway in American politics.
It is just irritating that now that you have your right wing tyrant in office, we are NOW supposed to be grown ups. It just sound more to me that our side won and that you on the left should just fold up like lawn chairs. You couch all this with the rhetoric of 'what is for the good of the country', when 99 percent of the time, we NEVER ageee as to what that is.
Concessions? Don't bet on it, the upcoming storm is in the forecast.
So on the political front, no peace in our time, so we let loose the dogs of war against an intractable enemy. Short of serious concessions and a no BS style reaching across the isle by Trump and the Republicans, that how I see things.
But I understand how that is troubling to standard rightwing thought processes.
"reactionary, rightwing", "militaristic, plutocratic hegemony", "right wing tyrant", "intractable enemy", "standard rightwing"
Are you aware that excessive superlatives and empty political slogans serve only to degrade your argument? That it makes whatever you have to say just more partisan politics, unworthy of the time to read it?
"It is just irritating that now that you have your right wing tyrant in office, we are NOW supposed to be grown ups."
So don't grow up. Continue the same activity that has virtually destroyed any possibility of reasonable government functionality. The same activity that produced a Donald Trump in the White House rather than a statesman worthy of the office (make no mistake - that behavior is the primary reason he is there, not his conservative politics and not the stupidity of an electorate that is sick and tired of being serfs to the elite). It is a choice that every American, politician or not, must make.
"Concessions? Don't bet on it, the upcoming storm is in the forecast."
And there it is again, the voice of the child unwilling to compromise or work toward a common goal. "Either we play by my rules or we don't play at all". A repeat of the last 8 years in congress, where compromise was unheard of and unacceptable to ANY of the 535 congress men and women. Rather sad, I think.
"Are you aware that excessive superlatives and empty political slogans serve only to degrade your argument? That it makes whatever you have to say just more partisan politics, unworthy of the time to read it?"
How is what you say in regards to 'the liberal mind' any different?
If you have 3 psychiatrists that examined Trump and went to Obama with the results you have 3 psychiatrists that need to lose their license to practice and should never, ever be believed regardless of what they say.
That is correct; your layman's opinion, or that of politically motivated experts, are insufficient reason to proclaim mental illness in anyone. It is a clinical diagnosis, not a statement that you don't like the man.
"What?!?! No, trampled grass is not the issue at stake here . . . ."
Actually, it is. That's what this subthread is about - those coverings, the photos taken of the crowd and who is lying about how many people there were.
It appears you are being willfully obtuse.
Since you obviously didn't read the first link, let me sum it up for you. They were ASKING Obama to conduct a full evaluation of Trump based upon their expert, professional view of his actions (which should be blindingly obvious to everyone without a professional diagnosis) - not providing an official evaluation.
And since you apparently didn't read the second link either, it addresses psychiatrists not making diagnoses of people they haven't officially examined but stated that experts around the country have become so concerned with Trump's behavior that they're speaking out b/c they fear for the American public’s safety - literally. But again, I suppose based upon your line of reasoning you would have no qualms with sitting down to lunch with Jeffrey Dahmer, in his kitchen, with the four human heads sitting on the countertop, b/c, after all, you can't say he's actually insane until he's had an official evaluation.
One of the reasons this whole inauguration attendance issue blew into such large proportions is that it is a very easily proven fact that Trump denies - b/c he lives in an Alternative World with Alternative Facts.
So where are all the Trump supporters who were so vocal about the media falsely reporting on the inauguration? I'd like to ask you two very simple questions. Based on the information in the opening comment:
- Do you accept that the Trump administration is wrong (or lying) when it says that ground protection has never been used before at an inauguration?
- Do you accept that the Trump administration is wrong (or lying) when it says more people used the metro during the Trump inaugural than the Obama inaugural?
(credit to Wilderness, who's the only Trump supporter to respond in this thread, and acknowledge that this information even exists).
Are facts really this scary?
Obama didn't actually go, it was a guy dressed in an exact replica bodysuit
Bill Clinton got drunk and hit on both of Trump's daughters, and one of the sons
They got word that someone on Pluto was actually watching the livestream on YouTube
Lots of people didn't show up to the concert on Thursday night because statistically speaking 97% of people who voted for Trump work on Thursday nights
Any discrepancies in the numbers of people who attended the inauguration can be explained by the fact that Trump supporters are also statistically big Harry Potter fans and wore invisibility cloaks
It wasn't raining, it was the sunniest day in 62 years, no one knows sunny days better than Donald Trump
In Donald Trump's culture it's really impolite to walk alongside your wife into a building after getting out of a car, it's customary to walk away from her as quickly as possible and is a sign of love and respect
Talking with your hands is not distracting at all and is actually a sign of tremendous, huge intelligence
Allegedly the real reason Sean Spicer was tossed cruelly from the comfortable realms of the Alternative World out to the hungry media wolves with his set of incredible Alternative Facts regarding inauguration numbers . . . President Snowflake was upset there were double the protesters in the Women's March:
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/white-h … ch-report/
And just because it's too hilarious to let get by:
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/dem-sen … ks-bigger/
Everyone on the left should fess up to the fact that the new Plague of De-legitimization of Trump is the new religion of the left ! And NOT just the radical left-- but all of them ! Now it comes down to the turf , yesterday it was the crowds , tomorrow it will be the bathroom fixtures and the day after that ,the tires on the presidential limo ,
Some advice to the left -
Alternate Facts - are the invention and new religion of the left and Not of Pres. Trumps .
by Susie Lehto14 months ago
In this video, Project Veritas investigators uncover a group known as the DC Anti-fascist Coalition plotting to disrupt President-Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration by deploying butyric acid at the National Press Club...
by Randy Godwin3 months ago
Is there anyone in the Trump administration who hasn't met with the Russians?Donald Jr., son-in-law and Manafort met with a well know Putin connected lawyer ostensibly to hear dirt on Hillary. That was one version, then...
by Marcy Goodfleisch14 months ago
Is is appropriate to boycott the inauguration in protest of Trump?Some politicians and leaders plan to boycott Trump's inauguration. Will that be good for the country, or will it be bad?
by Jack Lee10 months ago
What were the accomplishments most meaningful to you?What were the disappointments?For me the appointmemt of a conservative justice of Gorsuch was the highlight.The failure to repeal the ACA was the disappointment which...
by GA Anderson14 months ago
I will have to give some thought to why I have a nagging worry that speaking of attending the Inauguration is bragging, but until then, I am proud that I made the effort.Allow me to set the stage:I am not a Trump...
by ptosis16 months ago
AG Jeff Sessions, ranked the fifth-most conservative U.S. Senator & a supporter of the "nuclear option, voted against the prohibition of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.