So, the pictures were faked. Every piece of evidence is wrong. Look, I'm with you, who the fuck cares. But our president spent an entire day on it. He so far has been worse than I even thought. He's actually in his wheelhouse coming up on nafta negotiations. He should be able to score points and do something good here but I'm concerned he'll screw this up too.
So what you're saying is the inauguration of the first black president had more people than the first orange one? I guess orange really isn't the new black after all.
Gotta disagree here, respectfully. And it's not because a certain candidate did or didn't win. I live in California. I know people (red, blue and third party folks) who stay away from the polls because they know Cali is going blue no matter what. That leads to a "my vote doesn't matter" attitude that is pretty unproductive. I think voter turnout would be much stronger if everyone's vote went into one national bucket, instead of 50 regional buckets. You also wouldn't have people fudging around with their registration so they can vote in a swing state. After all, when I vote for President, I don't vote as a Californian - I vote as an American.
Hey dick head, those pictures are not accurate. I' m not saying there were more; only that the pictures were not representative of the actual crowd. It was filled in with people for Tump's too. Not when that picture was taken but when it started. Some of that white area was blocked off for security POSTED ON JANUARY 22, 2017 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN MEDIA BIAS, TRUMP TRANSITION WAS TRUMP RIGHT ABOUT HIS INAUGURATION’S CROWD SIZE? Apart from the overhyped “women’s” marches, yesterday’s biggest news story seemed to be the conflict between the news media and the Trump administration over the size of the inauguration crowd. The liberal media said it was small, relying largely on this photo comparison by the New York Times of Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration and Trump’s: Other media happily followed suit with lowball estimates of Friday’s crowd. Two points: one, there is not, and never will be, an official estimate of crowd size for either the 2009 inauguration or last Friday’s. The National Park Service stopped doing such estimates in the 1990s. Two, the issue normally would be analyzed by looking at satellite photos, but Friday was too cloudy for such pictures. Hence the uncertainty. The obvious question, of course, is when the Times’s photo of Trump’s inauguration was taken. Brit Hume–a far more reliable source than the New York Times–weighed in on Twitter: I was in the building at the bottom of picture on right yesterday. Shot was taken early, area was considerably fuller by time of speech, said Hume. Others took photos while the inauguration was in progress, and they appear to show a much larger crowd. E.g.: Areas in the Mall that look white in photos were blocked off for security reasons: I don’t doubt that the crowd for Obama’s first inauguration was larger than the one on Friday; among other things, no one was kept away in 2009 by threats of riots. But it does seem that the Times and other press outlets have been caught, once again, trying to minimize Donald Trump’s achievements and support.
Right. Trump won't give them a pass for any of it. It shouldn't be a shock to anyone. CNN, MSM, MSNBC etc ran this as a "story". I don't mind Trump calls them out for shit news. It was shit.
