Ibanez wrote:
The problem I have with this, is how do I know that picture on the left wasn't taken at 10AM or 930AM? Am I supposed to trust Vox? I see that CNN did a gigapixel of the event but work is blocking the image.
If you don't want to trust anything you see on the internet... that's fine. You can verify everything yourself.
There were overhead shots every now and then during the inauguration. I didn't start watching until the speech. If you want to verify it for yourself, I'm sure there are plenty of videos on youtube.
The crowd shot above by Vox looks pretty damn similar to what I saw during the addresss... but, feel free to post something different.
I'm sure if there are better crowd shots they won't be that hard to find.
I tried looking, a lot of sites are blocked (except for this one. ) I watched the entire thing and honestly don't recall what the turnout was. But who cares? What does it matter? I only brought it up b/c clearly a left-leaning news site is going to report something that could be embarrassing to a person that leans right.
Grizalltheway wrote:The funny part about this is you guys having trouble believing that not that many people showed up to see a president with a 37% approval rating heading into office.
If you don't want to trust anything you see on the internet... that's fine. You can verify everything yourself.
There were overhead shots every now and then during the inauguration. I didn't start watching until the speech. If you want to verify it for yourself, I'm sure there are plenty of videos on youtube.
The crowd shot above by Vox looks pretty damn similar to what I saw during the addresss... but, feel free to post something different.
I'm sure if there are better crowd shots they won't be that hard to find.
I tried looking, a lot of sites are blocked (except for this one. ) I watched the entire thing and honestly don't recall what the turnout was. But who cares? What does it matter? I only brought it up b/c clearly a left-leaning news site is going to report something that could be embarrassing to a person that leans right.
How well attended an inauguration or a rally, or protest was is a news worthy item.
Grizalltheway wrote:The funny part about this is you guys having trouble believing that not that many people showed up to see a president with a 37% approval rating heading into office.
Ibanez wrote:
I tried looking, a lot of sites are blocked (except for this one. ) I watched the entire thing and honestly don't recall what the turnout was. But who cares? What does it matter? I only brought it up b/c clearly a left-leaning news site is going to report something that could be embarrassing to a person that leans right.
How well attended an inauguration or a rally, or protest was is a news worthy item.
It probably wouldn't have been much of a story.
But, the Press Secretary used his first press conference to go on a rant about the attendance and calling it "the largest in history."
They wanted to make it a story for some reason.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
SDHornet wrote:JSO still in full retard meltdown mode.
Stupid of Trumpers to even bother disputing or even engaging in the Obama v Trump turnout. Obama's innaguration was a historic moment. Trump is just another white guy taking office.
If the Trumpers keep getting sucked in (trolled) to these weak as arguments they are going to get picked apart for the next 4 years.
@ 93's hilldogs inauguration meme.
And Trump's inauguration is also a historic moment. It would be true that Trump would be just another white guy taking office if Trump was a white guy prior politician (which 38 of 43 POTUS prior to Obama were). Only 5 had never been elected to political office:
1. Zachary Taylor- general
2. Ulysses S. Grant- general
3. Herbert Hoover- director of the now no longer in existence US Food Admin.
4. Dwight D. Eisenhower-general
5. Trump
Trump is the 1st president in US history to never have been employed by the govt. That is very historic.
Last edited by BDKJMU on Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:23 am, edited 4 times in total.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
Grizalltheway wrote:The funny part about this is you guys having trouble believing that not that many people showed up to see a president with a 37% approval rating heading into office.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
Grizalltheway wrote:The funny part about this is you guys having trouble believing that not that many people showed up to see a president with a 37% approval rating heading into office.
Gil Dobie wrote:Here is one from Time, a little less biased and a bigger Trump crowd, FWIW.
You think that looks like a bigger Trump crowd?
2009 is on the left and 2017 is on the right
Yes, it looks like a bigger Trump crowd than the picture you post showing only half the mall. I even stated in my first response that Obama's was probably bigger even with an unbiased photo.
Grizalltheway wrote:The funny part about this is you guys having trouble believing that not that many people showed up to see a president with a 37% approval rating heading into office.
89Hen wrote:
I think he was saying bigger than the VOX photo.
Looks to me like it just shows a portion of the crowd instead of the whole thing and eliminates quite a bit of white space at the back.
If there is much difference crowd-wise between the two photos... it isn't much.
\
So you are saying the left side of the Trump inauguration picture (only side showing in your photo) is almost equal to the right side of of the picture of the Trump inauguration?
Before White House Press Secretary began fudging facts, he was fighting...Dippin’ Dots.
Starting in 2010, the man who would become the top spokesman for the President of the United States devoted scoops of tweets to attacking the beady frozen treat known as the “Ice Cream of the Future.”
Sean Spicer kept his cream conflict going for five years — stretching through his tenure with the Republican National Committee.
On April 7, 2010, Spicer — then working for Endeavor Global Strategies, a PR firm he cofounded — let it be known to his Twitter flock: “Dippin dots is NOT the ice cream of the future.”
In September 2011, after Spicer had joined the Republican National Committee as communications director, he brought back the issue, writing: “I think I have said this before but Dippin Dots are notthe ice cream of the future (sic).”
Two months later, Spicer shared a Wall Street Journal story about Dippin' Dots filing for bankruptcy.
His resentment seemed to melt for a few years, until September 2015. By then, he had advanced to become the RNC's chief strategist.
Spicer, possibly at a baseball game, tweeted: "If Dippin Dots was truly the ice cream of the future would not have run out of vanilla.” He tagged the Washington Nationals in his post.
A little over a year later, Donald Trump would tap Spicer as the next White House Press Secretary.
Spicer has yet to reignite his Dippin Dots dispute from the podium of the White House. Instead, he spent his first few days on the job combating the press on easily provable facts about President Trump’s inauguration.
I knew it was FNC. And I knew you intentionally didn't mention the source in your OP as troll bait, waiting for someone to ask for source or link with he assumption it was a lib source, so you could go gotcha with FNC..
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
Skjellyfetti wrote:Please tell me this is satire...
Seems Spicer is easily triggered by Dippin Dots
Before White House Press Secretary began fudging facts, he was fighting...Dippin’ Dots.
Starting in 2010, the man who would become the top spokesman for the President of the United States devoted scoops of tweets to attacking the beady frozen treat known as the “Ice Cream of the Future.”
Sean Spicer kept his cream conflict going for five years — stretching through his tenure with the Republican National Committee.
On April 7, 2010, Spicer — then working for Endeavor Global Strategies, a PR firm he cofounded — let it be known to his Twitter flock: “Dippin dots is NOT the ice cream of the future.”
In September 2011, after Spicer had joined the Republican National Committee as communications director, he brought back the issue, writing: “I think I have said this before but Dippin Dots are notthe ice cream of the future (sic).”
Two months later, Spicer shared a Wall Street Journal story about Dippin' Dots filing for bankruptcy.
His resentment seemed to melt for a few years, until September 2015. By then, he had advanced to become the RNC's chief strategist.
Spicer, possibly at a baseball game, tweeted: "If Dippin Dots was truly the ice cream of the future would not have run out of vanilla.” He tagged the Washington Nationals in his post.
A little over a year later, Donald Trump would tap Spicer as the next White House Press Secretary.
Spicer has yet to reignite his Dippin Dots dispute from the podium of the White House. Instead, he spent his first few days on the job combating the press on easily provable facts about President Trump’s inauguration.
) I watched the entire thing and honestly don't recall what the turnout was. But who cares? What does it matter? I only brought it up b/c clearly a left-leaning news site is going to report something that could be embarrassing to a person that leans right.
