[El Gallo]

Originally Posted by alcimedes This paragraph from your link sums it up nicely if people don't want to read the entire thing.

Now all you need is a group to sue saying the court reasoning is false because there is a database where undocumented non-citizens are in fact documented aka have submitted all manner of identifying information but that the state refuses to share this information with the Federal Government thus documenting them and allowing them full use of their rights.

[Dr. Bobsky]

Originally Posted by El Gallo FInd a couple more stories about the case you mention. From what I recall four other judges in other districts have ruled differently (which is how such matters end up Federalized aka my point) and it was ruled they can bear arms but cannot purchase arms or ammo. I'd really hold off any conclusions drawn from a case l like this one which appears convoluted and conflicted even in its own reasoning. I don't expect you to see the rationales for why the Federal Government could demand the database. The most important one, and I know this gets lost in the discussion because it isn't a matter that is at the forethought for us, is that the folks on the database have broken Federal law. I didn't really take the discussion there because I don't want this to be a discussion about how you treat folks of this nature or whether any can be illegal, etc. However when discussing matters and how they would be brought before a court, we have to acknowledge the Feds have the right to ask for those names because they have broken the law. Per their reasoning California will be helping to harbor criminals who have broken immigration law.

Yes, well, that is the idea of sanctuary, and there are many reasons why a city or state would choose to protect a class of people at odds with Federal law, and it is in their right to do so. Whether you agree with their actions is an entirely different question.

[curiousuburb]

"I have the best quotes, nobody has better quotes."

[alcimedes]

[Dr. Bobsky]

That's about right.

[alcimedes]

Holy shit this is funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNgkgZ0eOMs

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by alcimedes crazy large photos...

I simply assumed that Trump was exaggerating as well when it was claimed the media lied over crowd size.

But this morning, a friend who attended the inauguration sent me a photo clearly showing the crowd filled in all the way to the white building at the bottom.
It was unmistakable.

He said that a lot of the crowd was held back by BLM protests blocking the security gates, and so the crowds filled in later.

He acknowledged the crowd was still smaller than Obama's (which is to be expected) but he's convinced much of the media (except CNN, oddly) is outright lying.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/...ion-gigapixel/

[alcimedes]

My understanding was the photos were taken at the exact same time prior to each inauguration, but if your buddy has a photo showing something different I'd be interested to see it.

I find it hilarious that the Press Secretary was making the simultaneous argument that there is no way to quantify the crowd size, but that Trump's was the biggest ever.

It's not even internally consistent.

(I shrunk the photos too, they were stupid big before, sorry!)

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by alcimedes My understanding was the photos were taken at the exact same time prior to each inauguration, but if your buddy has a photo showing something different I'd be interested to see it.

That's the thing. Obama had larger crowds to deal with, but he didn't have raucous, Starbucks-hating crowds to handle. It is quite possible that the full crowd came in a bit later due to the security blockages, and your point about the "photos taken at the exact same time" is still correct.

I linked to the CNN link because I don't have permission to post his personal photo. I'll see about getting that.

Originally Posted by alcimedes I find it hilarious that the Press Secretary was making the simultaneous argument that there is no way to quantify the crowd size, but that Trump's was the biggest ever.

Looking for truth from the WH Press Secretary has always been an exercise in futility. For me, all the way back to Stephanopoulos, I think.

Any thinking person can understand why Obama's inauguration, having a historical context, would have had a bigger crowd.

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by Frank777 Any thinking person can understand why Obama's inauguration, having a historical context, would have had a bigger crowd.

That's part of my confusion over their insistence that Trump's was bigger.

It's bizarro world concerns and logic to get there, and the reality is staring everyone right in the face.

I still contend the entire purpose for the press conference was to give people something concrete to call them on, and to remove some of the pressure from the shit show of nominees and how downright unqualified and hostile they are to their appointed departments.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by alcimedes That's part of my confusion over their insistence that Trump's was bigger. It's bizarro world concerns and logic to get there, and the reality is staring everyone right in the face. I still contend the entire purpose for the press conference was to give people something concrete to call them on, and to remove some of the pressure from the shit show of nominees and how downright unqualified and hostile they are to their appointed departments.

I have been confused why it even matters at all. I think popular vote would be a better off-hand indicator of overall likable status. Crowd on the ground doesn't seem like as big of a deal. It ranks more long the lines of ... "My dick is bigger than yours." Who cares how big the crowd was? In the end that man that some loved, some hated and others voted because they thought it was the least of all evils, is still in office and will be for at least the next four years.

What is annoying to me is all the tech blogs and sites I read are liberal and constantly still posting articles about how the world is coming to an end because Trump made it. I get that they don't agree, but it is a done deal so quit crying and whining about it. These same people posting how this crowd was bigger than that one, etc. Really?

[Frank777]

At today's press conference, Spicer corrected journalists that he had stated that Trump had the largest audience "in person and around the world".

When you add the streaming service numbers alongside the in-person and TV numbers, if that's indeed what he said, he has a point.

[turtle]

I will say I was one of the streaming households. I'm close enough I could have been there in person but hate DC traffic more than the concept of watching an inauguration in person. I feel like I had really good seats! Plus, who didn't want to see this fine display from an Ex-President?

[addabox]

That looks like..... a shot with Bill Clinton in the frame? Is he up to something?

[addabox]

You know, for the party of personal responsibility, steely resolve, and absolute contempt for "political correctness", these cats sure seem to have thin skins. I see now that Spicer (and interestingly it looks like somebody bought him a new jacket somewhere after that first, disastrous press conference) is complaining that all the negativity is "demoralizing" for Trump. I mean, first they think he's a long shot for the Republican nomination, then the polls slightly underestimate his final numbers (remember, the polls weren't counting EC votes) and now they insist on talking about his crowds! Just because the administration put forth demonstrably untrue numbers (Trump mused that it looks like 1.5 million to him).

That's so much worse than claiming you're a Kenyan Manchurian usurper tyrant! Or a child trafficking felon who is shortly to be hung! How does he bear up?

Seriously, what's going to happen when something important reflects poorly on Trump?

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by alcimedes I still contend the entire purpose for the press conference was to give people something concrete to call them on, and to remove some of the pressure from the shit show of nominees and how downright unqualified and hostile they are to their appointed departments.

Or it could be that the left-wing media needs something to distract from the outright cancellation of the TPP.

With that, Trump is treading very heavily on progressive turf. Everybody knows that Clinton would have signed the deal after some window dressing.

[Bryson]

Originally Posted by Frank777 Or it could be that the left-wing media needs something to distract from the outright cancellation of the TPP. With that, Trump is treading very heavily on progressive turf. Everybody knows that Clinton would have signed the deal after some window dressing.

Or, you know, both. I don't agree with much that Trump is up to but for everyone to get upset about him cancelling TPP when they've been screaming for that same thing until recently seems a bit rich. But just because he's doing the right thing on one issue doesn't excuse the other stuff...

Spicer seems fucking terrified. I'm not sure if he's more scared of the press or Trump (probably both) but thats clearly the reactions of a guy in fear.

[Dorian Gray]

I don’t think Trump’s reaction to the crowd comparisons should be taken at face value. This must be an experiment to probe what he can get away with. How does the press react to being told alternative facts by a president? To what extent and at what political cost can alternative facts displace the old-fashioned sort? What critical mass of believers is needed to sow uncertainty among the rest?

Like advertising, it sort of works despite yourself. I’m less sure how big the crowds were today than I was yesterday. I don’t particularly care either, but the executive is priming us for matters of greater import.

When the figures on jobs, trade balance, economic growth, wheat production, eviction and incarceration rates, infant mortality, butter rationing, etc., start trickling in, the government will have the dissemination of propaganda down to a fine art and no-one will have any idea what’s approximately true.

The surreal feeling isn’t going away. It’s like a Kafka novel without a shred of humour. I look on hopelessly and full of hope.

Spicer reminds me of Saddam’s information minister. He has a tough gig, eh?

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Bryson But just because he's doing the right thing on one issue doesn't excuse the other stuff...

Correct. Trump's not a conventional guy. Everyone probably has five or six issues where they can support him and a dozen or so where they will fight him.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray ...butter rationing...?

What?

[Dorian Gray]

Just a little dystopian joke.

Thomas Friedman fears a chaos presidency:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38718266

Who can tell what will happen? The guy’s a loose cannon and vandal (see today’s environmental news).

[Dr. Bobsky]

The gigapixel photo confirms the aerial photos very nicely -- we're not all that adept at interpreting space filling from low angles but you can clearly see the full height of people in the sections further out and this means they are pretty empty. It only matters because Trump's little ego got bruised by the comparison and he reacted and had his press sec react like a whining brat replete with threats to the press that they must report the news as the admin tells them to report it. (and the numbers for the streamed views are still less than that of Obama so there's that)...

Regardless, Trump is operating the government in his own reality. He literally believes there were 3.5 million or more fraudulent votes without evidence. His every act seems to serve the notion, machinations, and goals of an authoritarian regime. In addition to everything else, he is placing gag orders on *scientists* to prevent them discussing their work if it is at all related to regulation (Canada did something stupid like this as well -- it seems there's a belief if the scientists cannot be quoted saying we're fucking things up then we must not be fucking things up.... we're fucking things up). Please note: tax payers are paying for that science, it is therefore part of the public domain and placing gag orders on it makes absolutely no sense.

[709]

Even better, here are photos hi-res enough to see what Trump is saying on the monitors (ie: accurate timestamps).

Spicer... eh. Just The Ministry of Truth testing the newly chummed waters. Nothing to see here...

[El Gallo]

To me this sounds like Trump just playing the troll role while distracting the opposition.

You all are discussing the inauguration day numbers. Anyone discussing the Women's March, the Executive Orders, his Cabinet, legislation, etc.?

Just keep on keeping on though.

[709]

Nah, his thin skin needs to be pointed out and at every single day in office. He lost the people's vote, has the lowest approval numbers ever for an incoming president, and it drives him up the fucking wall. He's a joke on a global scale and has set the perception of America as a leader back immensely, maybe permanently.

There's time enough to talk about how many hands are up his ass; it's only day 4 (day 2 of 'workdays', apparently ).

[alcimedes]

Saudi Arabia, not on the list.

Saudi Arabia, home of 19 of 22 9/11 hijackers.

[Dr. Bobsky]

Extreme vetting of EPA reports to ensure they match the 'voice' of the administration. Apparently this admin thinks it can editorialize science and scientists will continue to produce...

[El Gallo]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Saudi Arabia, not on the list. Saudi Arabia, home of 19 of 22 9/11 hijackers.

You raise a very relevant point.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky Extreme vetting of EPA reports to ensure they match the 'voice' of the administration. Apparently this admin thinks it can editorialize science and scientists will continue to produce...

The EPA has been politicized for quite a while now. President Obama had numerous court losses related to regulating green house gases with regard to carbon dioxide.

There are a couple points here to consider. First private research is considered to be suspect nowadays and the research "tainted" by the profit motive. Yet for some reason the same or many more dollars being spent by the government are assigned no motive. My point is there is motive there as well. People tend to see it most when their side isn't in power or isn't "winning" but the issue remains. Should the EPA be as large as it is and should it be exerting as much power as it does right now.

When people fear the power of a President Trump, they often did not question that power being in the hands of President Obama. Very few people are asking of the president should have that power at all and should the role of the federal government be shrunken.

If I hear anymore about State's Rights here in California I'm afraid I'm going to start seeing confederate flags. (Yes that is sarcasm.) People have to be willing to have it work both ways. You can't have gay marriage be a federal matter but marijuana be a state matter. It rolls both ways, not just one.

BTW, how does everyone feel about the Obama decision to Federalize the elections as critical infrastructure now that we have a President Trump?

[alcimedes]

The thing I think people are latching onto with the attendance numbers is that they are very concrete compared to most political back and forth arguments. You can't let such a blatant falsehood slide, or anything and everything is fair game.

It's also a good way to find out if the person you're talking to is totally gone, or capable of putting two and two together. If after looking everything over, they start presenting some alternative facts, you might as well move on, as this conversation is incapable of productive results.

[El Gallo]

Originally Posted by alcimedes The thing I think people are latching onto with the attendance numbers is that they are very concrete compared to most political back and forth arguments. You can't let such a blatant falsehood slide, or anything and everything is fair game. It's also a good way to find out if the person you're talking to is totally gone, or capable of putting two and two together. If after looking everything over, they start presenting some alternative facts, you might as well move on, as this conversation is incapable of productive results.

I'm going to both agree and disagree with you. You are right that the numbers with regard to the inauguration are probably not finalized but it is pretty clear that the historic election of Barack Obama in 2008 led to huge massive crowds turning out to witness history on Inauguration Day in 2009.

But as for letting it slide, I'm still of the view that this is a form of engineered trolling that he intentionally does both to divert, suck up all the bandwidth and also to make the press reveal their biases to a degree that discredits them with a larger group of people. I'm also counting the phrase "alternative facts" as part of this intentional effort.

I mean seriously, who needs to keep underestimating this guy at this stage of the game?

In the grand scheme of things, what do the inauguration numbers really mean? Honestly they are pointless. They don't prove anything. They aren't going to change anything about governing for any side in any fashion. However I remember what I consider to be his earlier forms of engineered trolling, words like "schlonged" or "bleeding out her...eyes." And what have you. Again these play to the biases of the media.

So Trump on the actual governing side of the table has been engaging in several executive actions each day and to me at least, it appears they are around a theme of the day. So one day is about government size (hiring and regulation freezes, etc.) Another day is about border security. (Visa, wall, etc.), etc.

Most of these are uncontroversial but do contain a subset of more controversial actions that are largely being ignored because there isn't bandwidth to report on them.

Take the example of what you noted, VISA's from certain countries. That really does deserve some in depth analysis. I noted your point because it was highly relevant and a curious omission. So who will get to the bottom of it and when? I'm guessing no one will get to the bottom of it and not only that, the whole VISA issue, which people swore would never happen, is already a done deal.

People can't even pay attention to it. Instead the media will devote all their rage, and "analysis" and so forth on inauguration numbers and the phrase "alternataive facts."

Why? They can't let it go. Barack Obama was historic and damn it, this guy is trying to say he matched or was close or was more or who knows with regard to Obama. That can't stand, it just can't!

Meanwhile Trump is releasing press releases and taking photos with the TEAMSTERS and looks to be building some bridges there. How could no one pay attention to or notice that the TEAMSTERS are getting cozy with "The Donald"? They can't because they are still arguing inauguration numbers. If unions or even a decent chunk of union members changed their votes for the next election, that would be very relevant.

Here in California, I've mentioned to contemporaries that Democrats ran on free or at a minimum more affordable higher education. Instead the state is getting ready to raise tuition costs at all UC and CSU campuses. The folks I mention this to should care the most about this sort of matter but they can't seem to give it the time of day. They can however post a snarky picture correcting the grammar on a DeVos tweet or again, argue inauguration numbers.

Maybe I'm crazy but this is feeling structured to me. It is feeling crafted to divert and play to the internal biases. (I'm smarter, they're an idiot, this flatters me, etc.) It reminds me a Vanity sizing and clothing. (I know this isn't really a size 6 but it says 6 and I want to be a 6 so since it fits, I'm buying it.)

[Dr. Bobsky]

Originally Posted by El Gallo The EPA has been politicized for quite a while now. President Obama had numerous court losses related to regulating green house gases with regard to carbon dioxide.

Regulations are not science. Science is science. Obama lost the regulatory battle because of our perennially questionable separation of power between the states and the federal government, ie, California has more power to change environmental regulations than the federal government does.

There are a couple points here to consider. First private research is considered to be suspect nowadays and the research "tainted" by the profit motive.

This is odd. You are saying privately funded research is considered suspect because of the profit motive when in point of fact that is not why private research is considered (in some cases) dubious. We regularly allow pharmaceutical companies to build the FDA based applications on research that they themselves performed. We're ok with this system because there are checks in place, and it can be quite a rigorous process (to give you a sense, pharma companies pay for bells and whistles on instrumentation and analysis software that tracks every single mouse click, adjustment, and calculation just to make the regulatory applications more straightforward). The reason some private companies' research is considered suspect is because there are clear points of evidence to suggest that studies have been poorly designed (ie the methods they report to employ cannot give them statistical confidence in the results or non-associated labs find radically different results) and that the industrial group has in the past paid for research that proves a particularly appealing falsehood (proof here being cherry picked data and poorly designed studies -- cigarettes are perfectly safe!)

Yet for some reason the same or many more dollars being spent by the government are assigned no motive. My point is there is motive there as well.

Heh. No. The federal government's research budget for things relevant to you is pretty fucking small -- maybe at most 70 B (including 30 B for biomedical funding alone) for all of health, aerospace (non-military), technology, environment, standards, energy etc research -- this is less than the defence expenditures for research, and far less than the 320 B or so private companies expend. The 'motive' behind government expenditures in research is because there are many risks in doing science that private companies cannot or will not take on, especially when their shareholders or consumers are expecting the next best product every quarter. They funded my PhD lab because we were learning about aspects of human biology that hadn't been know, aspects private companies would not want to dump several hundred grand a year to know because the profit motive, if you will, would be 20-30 years out if ever. So no. Scientists funded by the government are not working towards some secret cabal's goal, they are working to uncover some truth we do not yet know. In the case of environmental work, they are seeking to understand how human's interact with the environment, and raise alarms (as they should) when they discover that we are doing some serious damage.

People tend to see it most when their side isn't in power or isn't "winning" but the issue remains. Should the EPA be as large as it is and should it be exerting as much power as it does right now.

Non-sequitor is non-sequitory. But no, the EPA should be bigger and have more potency in enforcing the laws it was designed to enforce and investigate the environment as it was designed to investigate.

When people fear the power of a President Trump, they often did not question that power being in the hands of President Obama. Very few people are asking of the president should have that power at all and should the role of the federal government be shrunken.

Or made larger with increased oversight by Congress (or some set of representatives of the people). Either way. The issue is that we simply shouldn't be electing frauds and hucksters -- Trump is a dangerous con man.