Expanding the window by 12 hours isn't enough to support Trump's claim for the largest in-person audience ever. But if you tack on 12 more, you may get there.
That wasn't my argument , jackass. Try reading.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Expanding the window by 12 hours isn't enough to support Trump's claim for the largest in-person audience ever. But if you tack on 12 more, you may get there.
It's a perfectly fair point to make. I think @texas_ex2000 also made an excellent point about who the respective candidates' supporters are and where they live. The inauguration takes place in Washington, D.C. - a city dominated by federal employees (most of whom probably had the day off of work), blacks, college students, and very wealthy white liberals. .....
Exactly. Not my cup of tea, but I have no problem with a candidate with an ego. I've worked with enough fighter pilots (sorry @ShAArk92) and investment bankers to go along with it as long as they do their job.It's a perfectly fair point to make. I think @texas_ex2000 also made an excellent point about who the respective candidates' supporters are and where they live. The inauguration takes place in Washington, D.C. - a city dominated by federal employees (most of whom probably had the day off of work), blacks, college students, and very wealthy white liberals. They were key parts of the Obama coalition and partisan Democrats. Hell, he could have drawn 200,000 just from DC - not the DC area, just DC. Throw in the surrounding metropolitan areas that are also overwhelmingly Democratic, and Obama had an enormous advantage in having a big inauguration crowd. Throw in other Democratic-dominated big cities that in the Acela Corridor that have cheap and easy access to DC, and the advantage is downright staggering.
By contrast, Trump supporters (especially the enthusiastic ones) don't live anywhere near DC, so for most of them, attending the inauguration would have required a big commitment of time and money that they probably didn't have. Furthermore, they don't usually have the kind of jobs where you can just take off anytime you want. Frankly, if he even got half of what Obama got in 2009, he did pretty well in my book.
He really has nothing to be ashamed of, but guys with small penis issues don't necessarily have small penises. They just feel inadequate, so they have to start a fight, even if it means BSing in the process.
You can't make this **** up. @Garmel can, but you can't.
Look at the bird! This is all just another Trump diversionary tactic. Though I have no doubt his ego will not allow him to believe he is ever second to anyone, and if alternative facts are necessary, so be it. Does it do damage to his credibility? Do you really think he has any credibility with the media? Yes, there is media bias and Trump is working it to his advantage like a concert violinist.
Yes, I sort of regret lowering myself into this one
But I do still think the point about the yuge livestream crowd (which completely bypasses most of the biased media) was worth making. It's a big deal, a big picture item, that is going to produce rapid change
then gave his 3-5 million illegal voter speech which people are now talking about.
Or is it more of a function of the proliferation of live streaming?.....
For the purpose of addressing what the OP wrote, it disproved his claim
Spicer and Trump clearly said "in person" too. NJ was referencing their statement.
I was not replying to them
Willful ignorance of their statement? NJ was clearly referencing Spicer's statement, not his own. Did Trump U offer a class on deflection that you should be demanding your money back for?
For the purpose of addressing what the OP wrote, it disproved his claim
Spicer went to war with the media today, aggressively defending Trump's absurd claim that Friday's crowd was the largest audience to ever watch an inauguration
Here is what you wrote. The claim you called absurd is actually true. Trump set an all-time new record for a live-streaming event. How many times do I have to write this?
To me the difference is significant. One is discussing something akin to a campaign promise (you can keep your doc, we're going to close Gitmo, etc.). Those things aren't always possible even if you want to do them but it's an untruth told in advance that you don't backup. This is an untruth (alternate fact) that is after the fact. This is a more direct lie. It's like telling people that they didn't see something that they clearly saw. Much like the 3-5 million illegals voted. Give that **** a rest. If they were going to coordinate illegals voting they'd be doing it in swing states, not California.The discussion is beneath everyone but it is a symptom of a problem that is fairly significant in my view. I also agree that the media should have focused more on Obama's pre-implementation comments about the ACA versus Trump's rhetoric. However, Trump is giving them raw meat and if he'll just give me a call I think I can straighten all of this out.
You have to give him credit. Every time you make him eat a **** sandwich he keeps coming back for more.
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC