No no no, you've got it all wrong. Obama intentionally rented a huge arena and then invited very few people (all of whom happily showed up and forked out cash) for reasons that us non-Messiahs couldn't possibly understand. I suspect he's making a statement about Republican obstructionism or perhaps the evil of America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I've accepted that I'll never understand Him.
Just so we're all clear - you actually think Obama's inability to fill a small arena rather than a large arena makes IGBT's point LESS valid?
You DO realize that "arena" refers to any place where events take place, correct? You know that when someone says "within the political arena" they are not literally referring to a huge stadium with "the political arena" engraved on the front, right? That when a building is dubbed "arena" it is in reference to the building's function, not necessarily its size?
I'll agree to your first point. For your second, if we can't tell if the photos are of roughly equivalent cases, then we can't tell. That also means you can't logically assume that the intent was dishonest. As far as we know, the situation (Obama speaking, Obama speaking in an hour, etc.) may be exactly the same. You are right to insist we don't know if the situations are analogous (other than the obvious lack of correlation with the election calender), but by that same token we don't know they aren't, either. You'd have to KNOW they aren't, AND that the difference is to intentionally deceive, to say with certainty that the picture is intentionally dishonest. Assuming that the speaker situation is roughly analogous, using that picture to point out the difference between Presidential popularity right now versus at its height would be perfectly legitimate, with the provision that some difference would be expected for any President.
