(January 22, 2017 at 7:04 pm)CanOfMountainDew Wrote:

(January 22, 2017 at 6:42 pm)Orochi Wrote: If there are no official Statistics then it's still lying to say you have the largest. It's no else's job  to show it's false. It's there job to have those statists before making the claim

 Your excuses are getting boring

I haven't excused anything. I admitted that it wasn't an offhand comment. You're delusional as usual.

(January 22, 2017 at 6:53 pm)abaris Wrote: Look at the picture comparisons. They speak for themselves.



Obama 2009

I know there are these picture comparisons. However from what I understand trump and the gang are basically saying that simply showing comparing two pictures doesn't prove anything; That One picture could have captured the event when it wasn't at its largest and then been deliberately used for comparison to one that was

Excuses Excuses

(January 22, 2017 at 7:08 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(January 22, 2017 at 7:06 pm)CanOfMountainDew Wrote: Meanwhile the very OP of this thread is literally propagating a false story.

top kek.

You shown it to be false ?

Yep. Not only did TRUMP not claim that it was the largest inaugeration ever, but the shit about him using the bee movie narrative in his speech was shown to be blatantly false, too.

(January 22, 2017 at 7:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 22, 2017 at 7:06 pm)CanOfMountainDew Wrote: Meanwhile the very OP of this thread is literally propagating a false story.

top kek.

---

No need to decide; This is a forum; The exchange is all text and it ain't going anywhere. Point out where I'm lying (excluding the mistake that I already owned.)

You are wrong if you think credibility does not matter.  You are not covering yourself with glory here.

Nice. Dodge my question. Credibility does matter. You made a claim, now back it up.

(January 22, 2017 at 7:11 pm)CanOfMountainDew Wrote:

(January 22, 2017 at 7:08 pm)Orochi Wrote: You shown it to be false ?

Yep. Not only did TRUMP not claim that it was the largest inaugeration ever, but the shit about him using the bee movie narrative in his speech was shown to be blatantly false, too.

(January 22, 2017 at 7:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You are wrong if you think credibility does not matter.  You are not covering yourself with glory here.

Nice. Dodge my question. Credibility does matter. You made a claim, now back it up.

I was already pointed out he exaggerated the numbers . And he's still responsible for what his staff does I already addressed this. As for the speech he already admitted he was wrong about something trumps staff could learn from .

And plenty of sources have shown it was not the largest

---

Quote:I haven't excused anything. I admitted that it wasn't an offhand comment. You're delusional as usual.

That wasn't even what I was commenting on you fool

And yes your making excuses

So save the title delusional for yourself

(January 22, 2017 at 6:28 pm)CanOfMountainDew Wrote:

(January 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Lol. You didn't watch the press conference did you. The press conference was called specifically to comment on the inauguration. The dude made a specific comment directly addressing the media's coverage and reporting about the numbers of people there. There is no way on earth anyone who actually saw the press conference could call that an offhand comment.

Also, let's dispense with the idea that anything bad that Trump's administration does cannot be called the responsibility of Donald J. Trump. I've spent 8 years listening to the same stuff on the other side.

Curiously, is there any real statistics on the attendance of the inaugeration?

The country has a thousand spy agencies and 10 million spies, 500,000 news agencies, spy satellites that can read a license plate number from outer space, and not one of them can determine how many people were at the inauguration.  We need a giant asteroid to put us out of our misery.

---

(January 22, 2017 at 7:10 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(January 22, 2017 at 7:04 pm)CanOfMountainDew Wrote: I haven't excused anything. I admitted that it wasn't an offhand comment. You're delusional as usual.


I know there are these picture comparisons. However from what I understand trump and the gang are basically saying that simply showing comparing two pictures doesn't prove anything; That One picture could have captured the event when it wasn't at its largest and then been deliberately used for comparison to one that was

Excuses Excuses

The top picture was taken several hours before noon, so of course there will be fewer people in it.  But even so the Gestapo were inefficient at allowing people into the site and couldn't (or wouldn't) process a massive amount of people rapidly.

I think the main reason Trumpites are upset about the crowds is that they're jealous of all the correctly spelled signs.













Boru

Look, more than the photo back up the estimates that his crowd was much smaller than Obama'said. There are hotel bookings and mass transit numbers, for instance.

And the fact is, as I saw pointed out by a conservative news source, it is normal for Republican presidents to have smaller crowds, because DC and the surrounding area is heavily liberal. Bush's largest crowd was estimated around 400k people the second time as the most ever for a Republican swearing in. So if Trump got 300 or 350k people, that's really fairly normal and quite expected. He should honestly have just responded that he was perfectly pleased with turnout, the end of statement. Not this insane insisting that he's the best, always the best at everything.

The fact that he cares so much that he has to distort facts, and have a press conference about it, instead of spending his time doing his job, is the real issue here. This is what we saw before he was elected, so it's really no shocker. It's also no shocker that his supporters will twist themselves in knots to ignore or justify the lies. But of course it's still upsetting to see.

So is this really a big deal?

Not to mention protesters were building walls of people preventing people from getting there, so that needs to be factored in.

(January 22, 2017 at 10:57 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: So is this really a big deal?

Not to me. It's a small deal, so it is still a deal of some size.