If you took the time to click through that image to the Daily Mail story it references you would have found out that that is a picture of Obama's inauguration. You Imbecile.
The picture is prefaced with: In addition, photographs of the National Mall from Obama’s 2013 inauguration show white tarpaulins covering large swaths of the Mall, refuting Spicer’s claim that 'floor coverings' seen Friday were a new phenomenon.
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that
I have a feeling every day we are going to see crap like this.
I love the new press secretary, I mean, just love him. He is like a little bull dog that hasn't gotten laid in six years, doesn't understand why, and is pissed.
People spending so much time on how many people showed up, miss the point who showed up to vote, Hillary Lost, Trump won.
It is the Trump administrtion that made the big deal about it. They even held a special news conference to scold the press for reporting the truth.
Originally posted by mineistaken
So post a video, there are plenty on youtube, and point us to the time stamp for that crowd.
Here is a screen shot from the video that nragt.com, a very Pro-Trump site published of the speech. It is not time stamped. I did not find much that was actually time stamped except the one I already posted from earthcam. But it you watch the video for a couple of minutes you will see that it is while Trump is speaking and the camera goes to show the crowd.
I understand that Trump thought there were more people then there were. I looked at many pictures from the point of view of the dais and it does look packed but that does not give the realistic picture. You have to find ones from an elevated position to see the truth.
So, I can understand and even sympathize that he looked out over the crowd and said "Damn, there must be a million people here." There is no problem with that.
But when he simply denies facts and then sends his press secretary into lie for him and pretty much has a hissy fit that he is not being treated fairly, that is when I have an issue.
It is the Trump administrtion that made the big deal about it. They even held a special news conference to scold the press for reporting the truth.
.
Really?
So major news outlets like NY times dedicating full blown articles (not just mentioning this between the lines in inauguration articles) to crowd comparison were not making big deal?
So major news outlets like NY times dedicating full blown articles (not just mentioning this between the lines in inauguration articles) to crowd comparison were not making big deal?
No, that is pretty much standard for any event like this, has been that way as long as I can remember and I am pretty old now.
Here is an current article talking about a bunch of different inaugurations and the crowd estimates. Most of those reference crowd estimates from the New York Times. So, The NYtimes at least reported on it each time.
Here is a good article from before the inauguration discussing the "Crowd size" issue.
By the way, I also found references all the was back to a Teddy Roosevelt speech where crowd size was talked about and disagreed about. As I said earlier, it is a very common subject to be discussed about an event along with the comparisons to past events.
Record-setting or underwhelming: Does the size of inaugural crowds really matter? Jan 19, 2017
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump says his inauguration will have “an unbelievable, perhaps record-setting turnout.” Organizers of a protest the next day call it the biggest demonstration in history to welcome a new president.
Exactly how many people actually show up for both events will likely never be known.
Counting the number of people at major public events is as much art as science, and there will be no official tally of how many people attend either Friday’s inaugural festivities or the Women’s March on Washington on Saturday.
Here’s a look at why crowd size is so mysterious.
•••
IT STARTS WITH THE MILLION MAN MARCH
For decades, the National Park Service provided official crowd estimates for gatherings on the National Mall. That changed after the Million Man March in 1995, a gathering of black men meant to show renewed commitment to family and solidarity. The park service estimated 400,000 people attended the march, making it one of the largest demonstrations in history in Washington.
But organizers believed they reached their goal of 1 million participants. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, one of the march organizers, threatened to sue the park service, arguing its count was motivated by “racism, white supremacy and hatred for Louis Farrakhan.” Researchers at Boston University did an independent analysis and said the crowd was much bigger, pegging it at more than 800,000.
Before it stopped, the park service came up with its crowd figures by studying aerial photographs. Using a grid system, the park service would divide the Mall into sections of equal square footage. Then it counted the number of people in each section of the grid by looking at how tightly packed the crowd was and assigning a number of people per square foot.
Not much has changed since about the way crowds are estimated, said Steve Doig, a journalism professor at Arizona State University who specializes in measuring crowd sizes.
Any time a crowd reaches into the hundreds of thousands, it’s a noteworthy gathering, Doig said, but boosters will always try to politicize the turnout for their chosen cause.
“One of the things that aggravates me ... is the need for it to be huge,” he said. “It sort of drives the numbers into areas where it just clearly is fiction and it undercuts the reality of what really is an amazing crowd.”
Trump clearly cares about posting a big number.
In a video ad posted on social media Wednesday, he said: “Hopefully we’re going to get a million people. We’re going to really make a big statement.”
It's beginning to be quite obvious that the gfy powers that be are taking full advantage of the trump situation to troll this place back into an active forum. I ain't knockin the hustle tho.
Anyone have any idea what Bush said to Hillary to piss her off so bad on the inauguration stage??
He was talking, she was listening and the more he talked the more pissed off she got. He walked away chuckling. Hillary was fuming. I wonder what he said.
Here is a good article from before the inauguration discussing the "Crowd size" issue.
By the way, I also found references all the was back to a Teddy Roosevelt speech where crowd size was talked about and disagreed about. As I said earlier, it is a very common subject to be discussed about an event along with the comparisons to past events.
The tRumputin fanboys are going to be very busy in the coming months justifying the lies from this administration. It's going to be a full time job. They are exactly like those little hyper dogs that constantly bite at your ankles when you walk past them. Not big enough to matter, just irritating. It must be one of those jobs tRumputin promised the morons. Ankle biter. I believe I would rather work at McDonalds than suck the tRumputin dick every day. Catch you at the next lie Ankle-biters!
Didn't Trump begin speaking after 1pm? You mentioned 12:15 when you posted the empty pics but I believe that was before things got started.
He put his hand on the bible at 12:00 eastern time. There is an rt.com feed that is time stamped right up to that moment. About 1:56:13 into the video shows his hand on the Bible with a time stamp that rotates through the times of the world and New York shows 12:00.
Comment