If Sean "Spicy Hot Takes" Spicer can't even tell the truth about inauguration size, what more do we expect for things that actually matter?
forum
List of OT Regulars, and what they're known for
posted
Total Posts
231
He said it was the largest ever. Can you refute that? You can't, because there aren't any solid numbers about the crowd sizes. I assume that you just saw some picture on Twitter or similar and too that to be undeniable proof.
Picture of the crowds, comparison:
It's ironic that you would use that example and then turn out to be wrong. But though left-wing people try to label right-wing sites as 'fake news', it's actually them who are the source of lots of fake information.
Picture of the crowds, comparison:
It's ironic that you would use that example and then turn out to be wrong. But though left-wing people try to label right-wing sites as 'fake news', it's actually them who are the source of lots of fake information.
I love how that pic circles the building, but fails to notice all the empty space that's there, conveniently minimized by the camera angle.
Remember, this guy put out bogus statistics about the DC Metro's ridership before the actual metro agency had a chance to release their statistics.
He also clearly prides himself for providing "clearly articulated misinformation." Intentional or not, that's not a good sign. Add that to the list of prominent officials taking The Onion seriously.
Another amazing moment from yesterday: "And I think through a lot of the actions and statements that he's going to make, I think the contributions of Frederick Douglass will become more and more." Sounds good, except for the fact that Douglass has been dead for over a hundred years.
Remember, this guy put out bogus statistics about the DC Metro's ridership before the actual metro agency had a chance to release their statistics.
He also clearly prides himself for providing "clearly articulated misinformation." Intentional or not, that's not a good sign. Add that to the list of prominent officials taking The Onion seriously.
Another amazing moment from yesterday: "And I think through a lot of the actions and statements that he's going to make, I think the contributions of Frederick Douglass will become more and more." Sounds good, except for the fact that Douglass has been dead for over a hundred years.
Is b1rd really suffering the effects of second-hand narcissism from his god-emperor? We're reaching new peaks, gentlemen.
It's hard to tell how much space there is, but it's still clear there's more than what the other image shows, in which people are clearly still congregating. I've heard that the crowd grew a lot shortly before the event began, as lot of people had trouble getting in due to trouble at checkpoints. It's pretty clear that these mainstream media sites were trying to mislead people about the crowd sizes. But it's hard to be definite about whether Sean was lying about him thinking that the crowd was the "biggest ever". I think it's likely that the crowds weren't as big as Obama's though, since Washington and the surrounding states are very liberal.
I'm not going to defend him if he was lying about subway statistics or being incompetent.
I'm not going to defend him if he was lying about subway statistics or being incompetent.
fill my ego and add me
what about meee
Topic Starter
I have no idea what to make of you guys, don't know you bois well enough
correct responseboat wrote:
who
Topic Starter
I meant as in you're nice girl, but it turned out the wrong way. I'm ok with thatMeah wrote:
OH GODBlitzfrog wrote:
Meah - Nice chick
So that must mean that I'm not a regular in OT, phew.
Topic Starter
Ahh I forgot about you, so you want to be in this list huhMadvillain wrote:
So that must mean that I'm not a regular in OT, phew.
I got you fam
please fix the typo in my name you blob of blob
HahahahaB1rd wrote:
He said it was the largest ever. Can you refute that? You can't, because there aren't any solid numbers about the crowd sizes. I assume that you just saw some picture on Twitter or similar and too that to be undeniable proof.
Picture of the crowds, comparison:
It's ironic that you would use that example and then turn out to be wrong. But though left-wing people try to label right-wing sites as 'fake news', it's actually them who are the source of lots of fake information.
It's so funny when people use an angle that makes it very hard to give perspective to somehow counter what a very clear angle shows. Basically what the media does all the time. Not say the wrong thing, just give the wrong perspective, as long as people will believe it (altho i guess in the USA it's more common to tell flat out lies as the media nowadays). It's like looking at a cilinder in 2d and saying that it's a rectangle when there is a picture right next to it showing it in 3d. Like holy shit dude, do you actually believe yourself or are you just trolling?
He's like this literally all the time, so I'm pretty sure he actually believes it. It's like they say, repeat a lie often enough and you start to believe it yourself.
that sounded lame as fUCKMahogany wrote:
It's like they say, repeat a lie often enough and you start to believe it yourself.
You're lame
Topic Starter
When bae doesn't want to have any spaceColdTooth wrote:
please fix the typo in my name you blob of blob
Coldtooth gives me TOO MUCH space :c
You mean the video where the crowd is still arriving, and then at 0:46 it inexplicably cuts out, and suddenly it's the afternoon and everyone is leaving? Yes, tell me more about how I'm an idiot and how I'm being fooled by the media when you present an obviously edited video by the media.silmarilen wrote:
Hahahaha
It's so funny when people use an angle that makes it very hard to give perspective to somehow counter what a very clear angle shows. Basically what the media does all the time. Not say the wrong thing, just give the wrong perspective, as long as people will believe it (altho i guess in the USA it's more common to tell flat out lies as the media nowadays). It's like looking at a cilinder in 2d and saying that it's a rectangle when there is a picture right next to it showing it in 3d. Like holy shit dude, do you actually believe yourself or are you just trolling?
Hika wrote:
winber1 wrote:
wew close call
didn't want to be on this degen list
Really interesting that alt-right people who claim to be unable to be misled by mainstream media will just believe the first thing any alternative source gives them, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. :thinking:
Obviously anything that disagrees with their narrative is lies
At least he accurately represents his audience
At least he accurately represents his audience
It was from CNN. But at least it was taken at the time President Trump was giving his speech. We have already argued over perspective, do you want to argue that the media wasn't trying to under-represent how many people were at the rally by taking photographs before it had starter, or cutting out certain times from their timelapse? Because the media is known for misrepresentive photography.
The two pictures were taken within roughly 15 minutes of each other on their respective days
Do you have a source on that?
More specifically, up to 26 minutes apart, actually! Still pretty close timing though, so it shouldn't mean a massive disparity in crowd size.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01 ... bama-2009/
Note that Trump then tweeted about his crowd size being bigger than Obama's in 2012 at his second inauguration.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01 ... bama-2009/
Note that Trump then tweeted about his crowd size being bigger than Obama's in 2012 at his second inauguration.
I stand corrected, then. Although, the crowd probably wasn't at its full size, you can still see people entering, and I heard there were delays due to problems at the checkpoints, protestors blocking the entryway, problem with security, reasons like that. I don't really blame Trump for exaggerating the crowd size, he's always been like that.
To add on to what B1rd said, there were a lot of reports (especially from CNN) on the previous day saying that the weather would be horrible. That might be another reason why people didn't show up. For all I know, the numbers were in fact fewer, but the mainstream media took it as an opportunity to slander Trump even further because... well, that's what the media does. They know Trump hate will get them more views.
How does it always come to this
I'm not known as the "argument initiator" for nothingAomi wrote:
How does it always come to this
Look at them making so many excuses
I won't say the weather and difficulty entering was the reason by the relatively small crowds; Trump is pretty divisive as it is, and Washington and the surrounding states are quite liberal. Obama was much more appealing to a wider crowd than Trump is. Although while he doesn't have the numbers, people who do supporter him are generally pretty enthusiastic. Trump has always been able to generate large crowds at his rallies in any state (and they were a lot larger than Hillary's, which were honestly pretty pathetic).
That's not exactly surprising. Bernie had more people showing up to his rallies than Clinton as well; there was a lot of mutual dislike coming from the left because she didn't appeal to the younger generation at all (except to the people who were dumb enough to think that someone's gender actually matters in a presidential campaign). After the DNC leaks (where they explicitly talk about jeopardizing Bernie's campaign and not only that, Donna Brazile leaking CNN debate questions to Clinton), a lot of left-wingers, especially Bernie supporters, felt disbelief and alienation towards the Democrats and thus switched to another candidate (or just Bernie).B1rd wrote:
Trump has always been able to generate large crowds at his rallies in any state (and they were a lot larger than Hillary's, which were honestly pretty pathetic).
So did the Dems shoot themselves in the foot? Yeah, no shit. They always talk about being on a higher level than the Republicans, but this whole mess just proved how deceitful they truly are, especially towards their own.
I mean, it's presumably for a few reasons. But yeah, Obama's first inauguration was more iconic, you could say- young people voted more than ever before iirc, and he represented something fresh and new. Trump was never gonna pull a crowd quite like that.
Also I'll agree that the media ran with the "haha nobody showed up" meme, mainly because people like reading about Trump/his supporters getting BTFO.
This election has definitely been the most divisive in a LONG time, although I'd argue that's for a very good reason considering what he's been doing since he got elected. Before the election I was pretty pissed off at all the liberals whining/threatening to flee the country etc etc, but I think the "resist Trump" thing has been quite good
Also I'll agree that the media ran with the "haha nobody showed up" meme, mainly because people like reading about Trump/his supporters getting BTFO.
This election has definitely been the most divisive in a LONG time, although I'd argue that's for a very good reason considering what he's been doing since he got elected. Before the election I was pretty pissed off at all the liberals whining/threatening to flee the country etc etc, but I think the "resist Trump" thing has been quite good
What exactly do you mean when you say the "resist Trump" thing was good? Trump has been doing a pretty good job since he got into office, he's been promptly getting on with fulfilling his campaign promises. Most of these people who continue to kick up a fuss about Trump are doing so for stupid reasons, not because of his policy or anything but just because they don't like him, and want to make it as difficult as possible for him to manage the country.
I really have no association my generation of millennials who seem to all by lefty socialists. They feel entitled entitled to everything, and think "the rich" should pay for it, because in their mind anyone who makes a lot of money is automatically an exploiter.
I really have no association my generation of millennials who seem to all by lefty socialists. They feel entitled entitled to everything, and think "the rich" should pay for it, because in their mind anyone who makes a lot of money is automatically an exploiter.