- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
Does this count as TDS? (2020 election Biden landslide ‘more likely’ than Trump win: Nicholas Kristof) - I feel like it should, even if it's from an absolute rag like Yahoo! News. Every headline I see from them is pretty much TDS riddled, but claiming that 'Biden is more likely to get a landslide victory than Trump' really goes above and beyond. The sheer fantasy that 'vote blue no matter who' can energize a voter base the way a cult of personality does, so that it can landslide like one, is hysterical.
Also the queue was 20,000+ long for some reason.
CNN exclusively used photographs from before his inauguration started and after it ended (there's a giant clock visible in the shots), which made it look like there were barely anyone around. If you actually dug into the images and film of the inauguration proper (particularly the UHD 360 camera they set up that took a picture of the entirety of the crowd centered around the actual ceremony) you could see that it was truthfully packed when the ceremony was going (there's a landmark that can be used to measure the crowd despite the radically different angle.)
Trump responded to CNN's claims saying that his inauguration had the most viewers in history. This is true, but only if you count the streaming services, which didn't really exist for Obama's original inauguration, and nobody really cared that much for his second one.
Truthfully: His inauguration had lower attendance than Obama's first. Although the size of the inauguration is totally meaningless outside of political slapfights, there's known mitigating factors for it, so I'll say them anyway.
- Obama's inauguration was a historic moment, being the first black president. No one short of maybe the first woman will ever reach that level of significance. Hispanic, Asian, Native, etc just aren't going to reach that level, because most people aren't racist and the average American only really thinks about race with any significance when it comes to white v black. And even for the SocJus types, Obama was still the first 'nonwhite' president.
- Despite the above guaranteeing Trump would never reach the level Obama did, there was active supporter suppression going on around the inauguration. People reported having their jobs threatened if they were caught going out to see the inauguration, people were denied vacation days that coincided with the inauguration, and there were very active campaigns to excommunicate, shame, or get fired anyone who was caught out as a 'Trump supporter', like if they went to the inauguration.
- At DC, protestors attempted to hold up traffic and formed human chains to block foot traffic at every single street leading to the inauguration, and had to be forcibly moved by the police, attempting to prevent anyone from attending.
tl;dr - Neither Trump nor CNN lied, but both manipulated the data as they presented it. Trump did have a smaller inauguration than Obama's, but literally anyone other than a woman (not hillary) would have, and the fact that he reached the attendance he did despite the constant attempts to interfere with it in an effort to delegitimize his presidency says more about him and his supporters than any comparison could.
Also "We'll vote him in and then hold him accountable once he wins!!" is absolute horseradish, it's the same myth they claimed with Hillary. Voting is how you hold them accountable. You can make toddler poopy faces and storm around angry all you want when you get offended, but if you vote for them anyway, they don't care. And if you vote congress solid blue, the president blue, and support a candidate who ouright plans to pack the court for political reasons, so it becomes just another branch of congress, you lose the ability to even try to hold them accountable.
Also the queue was 20,000+ long for some reason.
'You're right, both Democrats and Republicans have problems. Now, let me discuss only the flaws the Republicans have, because I neither believe nor care about both sides being flawed, I just want you to vote for my side.' If you want to appeal to someone by saying 'both sides are flawed but let me convince you why you should vote this way anyway' at least make the attempt to discuss both sides' flaws.
This is coming from the people who masturbated to the idea of a country where old people no longer existed and couldn't vote, so that only the 20 and under demographic voted back in 2016, and also the people who raged that old people shouldn't be allowed to vote on climate change or Brexit because 'it doesn't affect them like it does young people'.
in 2016, there were a few places that published lists of not only those who said supportive things of Trump, but a comprehensive list of celebrities and notable figures who just didn't say anything at all. Refusing to speak up on the side of Hillary made them worthy of harassment, because we were to infer they might secretly be Trump supporters, and that's not allowed. You're verbally for them, or you're against them.
This has been a thing since 2017, and the truth is in the middle:
CNN exclusively used photographs from before his inauguration started and after it ended (there's a giant clock visible in the shots), which made it look like there were barely anyone around. If you actually dug into the images and film of the inauguration proper (particularly the UHD 360 camera they set up that took a picture of the entirety of the crowd centered around the actual ceremony) you could see that it was truthfully packed when the ceremony was going (there's a landmark that can be used to measure the crowd despite the radically different angle.)
Trump responded to CNN's claims saying that his inauguration had the most viewers in history. This is true, but only if you count the streaming services, which didn't really exist for Obama's original inauguration, and nobody really cared that much for his second one.
Truthfully: His inauguration had lower attendance than Obama's first. Although the size of the inauguration is totally meaningless outside of political slapfights, there's known mitigating factors for it, so I'll say them anyway.
- Obama's inauguration was a historic moment, being the first black president. No one short of maybe the first woman will ever reach that level of significance. Hispanic, Asian, Native, etc just aren't going to reach that level, because most people aren't racist and the average American only really thinks about race with any significance when it comes to white v black. And even for the SocJus types, Obama was still the first 'nonwhite' president.
- Despite the above guaranteeing Trump would never reach the level Obama did, there was active supporter suppression going on around the inauguration. People reported having their jobs threatened if they were caught going out to see the inauguration, people were denied vacation days that coincided with the inauguration, and there were very active campaigns to excommunicate, shame, or get fired anyone who was caught out as a 'Trump supporter', like if they went to the inauguration.
- At DC, protestors attempted to hold up traffic and formed human chains to block foot traffic at every single street leading to the inauguration, and had to be forcibly moved by the police, attempting to prevent anyone from attending.
tl;dr - Neither Trump nor CNN lied, but both manipulated the data as they presented it. Trump did have a smaller inauguration than Obama's, but literally anyone other than a woman (not hillary) would have, and the fact that he reached the attendance he did despite the constant attempts to interfere with it in an effort to delegitimize his presidency says more about him and his supporters than any comparison could.
You're not getting a 'lesser of two evils' if you're voting to vote someone else out. You'll literally never have the opportunity to vote for someone more than 'the lesser of two evils' if you prove you'll just vote the party line and against 'the big bad red' no matter what your party puts forth.
Also "We'll vote him in and then hold him accountable once he wins!!" is absolute horseradish, it's the same myth they claimed with Hillary. Voting is how you hold them accountable. You can make toddler poopy faces and storm around angry all you want when you get offended, but if you vote for them anyway, they don't care. And if you vote congress solid blue, the president blue, and support a candidate who ouright plans to pack the court for political reasons, so it becomes just another branch of congress, you lose the ability to even try to hold them accountable.
. Fox and his actual campaign site are less receptive organs for his 'propaganda' than Facebook is? Remember that when lefties screech about the Zucc enabling 'far-right' propaganda it's because they want him to be pulling the mass memoryhole blitz they've all been doing the past week, but 24/7.
