Today is President Trump’s first full day in office. So far, things are shaping up as should be expected, even though people, me included, still can’t believe he’s doing the things the way that he is doing them.

First, Trump headed over to Langley to tell the CIA he loved them. It was a much needed effort to smooth over a perceived rough spot between him and our intelligence agencies. From the sound of the crowd, they were pretty happy with this affectionate overture from their new Commander-in-Chief.

Next, Sean Spicer held his first press conference. The conventional wisdom held that he must have some important updates or he would wait until the regularly scheduling briefing on Monday. Also expected at the press conference would be an opportunity for questions. Well, the age of Trump has arrived people! Nothing will be as it ever was!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPAl6m6V_g

Spicer started off by lambasting the press with an awful falsehood about how the MLK bust was now missing from the Oval Office. It was immediately proved false, and the twerpy reporter who tweeted that information only responded by saying maybe a secret service agent was standing in front of it so he didn’t see it, according to Spicer.

Tweeting again: wh aide confirms the MLK bust is still there. I looked for it in the oval 2x & didn't see it. My apologies to my colleagues

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) January 21, 2017

The second story Spicer took on was the size of the crowd at Inauguration. Reporter Zeke Miller had something to say about that too.

Astonishing that so many of the best seats on the parade route along Penn Ave by the White House are empty.

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) January 20, 2017

While again, the talking heads are painting Spicer’s point as spiteful and egotistical on the part of Trump to argue about whose crowd was bigger, they neglected to mention the real reason Trump thought this was important to bring up. Here’s some discussion on Fox about how they think Trump shouldn’t address these things:

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

The effect of these types of stories, as presented, lay more in the editorial realm, rather than a true reporting of facts. The audience gets the message that enthusiasm for Trump is lacking, which he does not believe to be true, and directly affects the success of his presidency.

There of course is no official way of knowing whose crowd was bigger, and there are probably many reasons besides enthusiasm that would account for differences in the size of any crowd. The pictures as compared side by side could have been taken at different times – one at full capacity, one while people are filing in. More people could be occupying less space than in the comparison, and this years ground is covered by white tiles that allow much more contrast to be seen. More security measures this year possibly slowed people down. From the questions about the photos themselves, more people could have stayed away this year because of the reported violence. More people who voted for Trump could live farther away and found it harder to travel. 2009 was quite a monumental election, with the first black person to be elected president. That was a pretty big deal so it should be expected that a lot of people would turn out. Apples to oranges? Does the size of the crowd really indicate anything besides the size of the crowd?

It’s hard to say either way, but if we are to go with the only information we are being presented by the press, it does look like the crowd this year is probably smaller, but there is still an enormous amount of people present. But it’s not exactly a difference of 3 million or anything, the numbers the progressives keep foisting on us regarding Hillary’s votes.

So what is the real reason the press would want to point this out? The number one reason is to try to embarrass and undermine Trump. It’s the same reason the reporter was beside himself to tweet out that the MLK was missing, even though it wasn’t really missing, just hiding I guess.

I have mixed feelings about how Trump reacts to these “petty” attacks. On the one hand it feels beneath him to address these slights. It would be so big of him to let them go. But look what being the bigger person got George W. Bush. Not a damn thing. Well, wait, it got us Obama! So while Trump is brash, blunt, and coarse, I think he is the man for the job. These liberals won’t let up by treating them as we would wish to be treated so why not give them a taste of their own medicine? They made their bed, now they have to lie in it.

No one should continue to be surprised by Trump’s approach to these attacks. He’s going to punch back. The real question is: Do you think he should?