Inauguration Day For Trump
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
SJW?
Never heard of the term
I am a Constitutional Justice Warrior
Does this make a CJW?
I like it,thanks for the heads up
Very fair points. Now we have confirmation that the press Sec. did not "lie". he used "alternate facts" You can't make this snuff up. They are making it OK to lie boldly to the world and create a new euphemism for doing so.
How can anyone believe anything they say now?/ They have lost credibility.... and it is only day three.
what is perplexing is that some are maliciously enjoying this..... but then one can only question their mindset and sanity.
we are seeing some serious sociopath y at work....
" If you are going to lie.don't be so obvious about it"See the Putin skit ?? Very good . No worries America. Putin will look after you .as this is the most expensive thing he has ever bought."
Truisms in it. Enough for Trump to have apoplexy on Twitter again.
Cannot believe how low things have sunk. we are talking bottom feeder quasi dictatorship. Trumps war on the media is a prelude to reducing the freedom of the press. He does not deal in facts.. and Houston. that is a BIG problem. The chap is unhinged and unstable.
SNL's Valdimir Putin and Donald Trump Cold Open: Video
That is the worst strawman argument yet. First off, they are not peeved because Hillary lost. They are peeved that Trump has no respect for women, their rights, civil rights, he mocks the disabled, he disrespects veterans, immigrants, other races and religions, the list goes on and on. Your bringing Hillary into it is just to divert attention away from your heroes shortcomings.Trump has a long way to go till he murders over 4000 thousand innocent men, women and children like Obomba did - and bragging about THAT isn't as bad as some typical male locker room banter?
I wonder if the spinny babes protesting know about those dead women and kids, and that THAT is what they are supporting?
Not to mention hillary's role in the slaughter at WACO, where women and children were slaughtered, and bills role in the false flag at OKC, where they bombed children in a DAYCARE to frame militias
I notice this fact does not effect his detractors and to me that DAMNs them all to HELL too
Trump has a long way to go till he murders over 4000 thousand innocent men, women and children like Obomba did - and bragging about THAT?
Is that a fair statement? Shouldn't ISIS and the president of Syria share some of the blame for that?
The BBC is on the march with selective statistics
Charles Moore
23 January 2017
The Telegraph
158 Comments
A combination of photos taken at the National Mall shows the crowds attending the inauguration ceremonies to swear in U.S. President Donald Trump (left) on 20 January 2017, and President Barack Obama (right) on 20 January 2009 Credit: Reuters
I am looking at the top line of the BBC News website. It carries a story about the numbers who attended Donald Trump’s inauguration and the protests against him.
It quotes Mr Trump saying that 1.5 million people watched him in Washington, and his press secretary Sean Spicer speaking of “the largest audience ever to see an inauguration”.
“Neither man has produced evidence to back their claims,” says the BBC, displaying comparative photographs of the first Obama inauguration and of Mr Trump’s, to the latter’s disadvantage.
This is its next paragraph: “On Saturday, millions in the US and around the world took part in protests to highlight women’s rights, which activists believe to be under threat from the new administration.”
I bet the BBC is right that Mr Trump is wrong: he tends to multiply almost every statistic he deploys. The White House press secretary could also be right, however, when he said (which the BBC did not highlight) that this was “the largest number ever to witness an inauguration both in person and around the globe”.
My question, though, is why the BBC does not also challenge the figures for all those protesting women. Any reporter knows that the organisers of political crowds generally exaggerate their numbers, often by a multiple of ten. President Trump is only one such exaggerator.
The sole really large march in recent years which had a proper counting system was the Countryside march in London in 2002. It was attended by 404,000. Most big marches are much, much smaller than that.
The truest report of Saturday’s events would have said: “Mr Trump’s inauguration and the protests against him were attended by many fewer people than their respective organisers claimed.” But that would not have satisfied the BBC.
The underlying purpose of its story is not to find the truth but to fire its latest shot in the war between Mr Trump and the mainstream media. To back up its line, the BBC invoked The New York Times, CNN and ABC, which also attacked the Trump claims.
Its website report added: “Pro-Trump Fox News reported the claims unchallenged.” It did not say that all the media it cited in support are vehemently anti-Trump. Nor, naturally, did it add, “Anti-Trump BBC reported the women’s marches’ claims unchallenged.”
The BBC is on the march with selective statistics
Charles Moore
23 January 2017
The Telegraph
158 Comments
A combination of photos taken at the National Mall shows the crowds attending the inauguration ceremonies to swear in U.S. President Donald Trump (left) on 20 January 2017, and President Barack Obama (right) on 20 January 2009 Credit: Reuters
I am looking at the top line of the BBC News website. It carries a story about the numbers who attended Donald Trump’s inauguration and the protests against him.
It quotes Mr Trump saying that 1.5 million people watched him in Washington, and his press secretary Sean Spicer speaking of “the largest audience ever to see an inauguration”.
“Neither man has produced evidence to back their claims,” says the BBC, displaying comparative photographs of the first Obama inauguration and of Mr Trump’s, to the latter’s disadvantage.
This is its next paragraph: “On Saturday, millions in the US and around the world took part in protests to highlight women’s rights, which activists believe to be under threat from the new administration.”
I bet the BBC is right that Mr Trump is wrong: he tends to multiply almost every statistic he deploys. The White House press secretary could also be right, however, when he said (which the BBC did not highlight) that this was “the largest number ever to witness an inauguration both in person and around the globe”.
My question, though, is why the BBC does not also challenge the figures for all those protesting women. Any reporter knows that the organisers of political crowds generally exaggerate their numbers, often by a multiple of ten. President Trump is only one such exaggerator.
The sole really large march in recent years which had a proper counting system was the Countryside march in London in 2002. It was attended by 404,000. Most big marches are much, much smaller than that.
The truest report of Saturday’s events would have said: “Mr Trump’s inauguration and the protests against him were attended by many fewer people than their respective organisers claimed.” But that would not have satisfied the BBC.
The underlying purpose of its story is not to find the truth but to fire its latest shot in the war between Mr Trump and the mainstream media. To back up its line, the BBC invoked The New York Times, CNN and ABC, which also attacked the Trump claims.
Its website report added: “Pro-Trump Fox News reported the claims unchallenged.” It did not say that all the media it cited in support are vehemently anti-Trump. Nor, naturally, did it add, “Anti-Trump BBC reported the women’s marches’ claims unchallenged.”
The BBC is on the march with selective statistics
I have to admit I'm losing my patience in dealing with people who ignore reality. I mean, I get how you're more likely to accept certain personal failings or mistakes from someone you like or support than you are from a stranger, much less someone you dislike. But there is such a thing as reality here. While I've voted conservative all my life at every level, and while some of what Trump says with regard to taxes, regulations and Muslims appeals to me, I'm not wacked out crazy enough to deny the reality of my own eyes when I see empty stands and empty fields. I'm also not going to accept the preposterous lunacy that the "MSM" is in some kind of collective conspiracy to lie about Donald Trump on something which is pretty verifiable. And I think those who can convince themselves that the sight of his press secretary yelling at the press for telling the truth is a good thing probably ought to be on meds, if not in straight jackets.
I am pretty sure Donald Trump's numbers were lower but that's not how the intial media slobbering went off now was it.
The pictures are at an angle to disguise the lack of people there. Apparently, tickets sales were less too - ~550K for Trump and around ~750K for Obama.
They probably were lower than Obama, but being the 1st blackish president is pretty historical no matter how you look at it. Plus they'd be a lot more potential attendees who don't work. ;-)
Regardless, Trump's inauguration viewed on TV was ~31-35M people, a 11M increase from the 2013 inauguration.
The pictures are at an angle to disguise the lack of people there. Apparently, tickets sales were less too - ~550K for Trump and around ~750K for Obama.
They probably were lower than Obama, but being the 1st blackish president is pretty historical no matter how you look at it. Plus they'd be a lot more potential attendees who don't work. ;-)
Regardless, Trump's inauguration viewed on TV was ~31-35M people, a 11M increase from the 2013 inauguration.
Trump’s inauguration broke live video streaming records
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/23/trumps-inauguration-broke-live-video-streaming-records/
and this Spicy tidbit.
Paul Joseph Watson Verified account @PrisonPlanet
Spicer made this fake news reporter look like an idiot. Of course more people watched Trump than Reagan. There was no Internet in 1981.
check the related video at this tweet:
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/823676813939503106
Asks about numbers. Doesn't want to get into numbers.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/23/trumps-inauguration-broke-live-video-streaming-records/
and this Spicy tidbit.
Paul Joseph Watson Verified account @PrisonPlanet Spicer made this fake news reporter look like an idiot. Of course more people watched Trump than Reagan. There was no Internet in 1981.
check the related video at this tweet:
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/823676813939503106
Asks about numbers. Doesn't want to get into numbers.
in PAKISTAN, SOMALIA and YEMEN?
The US government today claimed it has killed between 64 and 116 “non-combatants” in 473 counter-terrorism strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya between January 2009 and the end of 2015.
This is a fraction of the 380 to 801 civilian casualty range recorded by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism from reports by local and international journalists, NGO investigators, leaked government documents, court papers and the result of field investigations.
While the number of civilian casualties recorded by the Bureau is six times higher than the US Government’s figure, the assessments of the minimum total number of people killed were strikingly similar. The White House put this figure at 2,436, whilst the Bureau has recorded 2,753.
Since becoming president in 2009, Barack Obama has significantly extended the use of drones in the War on Terror. Operating outside declared battlefields, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, this air war has been largely fought in Pakistan and Yemen....
...Jennifer Gibson, staff attorney at Reprieve said: “For three years now, President Obama has been promising to shed light on the CIA’s covert drone programme. Today, he had a golden opportunity to do just that. Instead, he chose to do the opposite. He published numbers that are hundreds lower than even the lowest estimates by independent organisations. The only thing those numbers tell us is that this Administration simply doesn’t know who it has killed
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...ne-casualty-numbers-fraction-recorded-bureau/
Hillary Admitted She And Obama Created ISIS – Caught on Tape!
Hillary Admitted She And Obama Created ISIS - FLASHBACK!
The Inconvenient Truth: Bashar al Assad’s Popularity Confounds NATO Propagandists
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-in...pularity-confounds-nato-propagandists/5532844
Presidential Approval Ratings -- Barack Obama
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
he has roughly the same results as Assad, except obama's results are from the known fake news polsters, so I bet Obama's real aproval rating is lower as hillarys election results were lower
The overall participation rate of 58% (virtually identical to Canada’s last federal election) exceeded the government’s expectations in most places but was low in others.
https://southfront.org/the-syrian-election-results/
Last edited:
Too bad no one should up to your loser rally. Things ain't the same since Nuremberg, eh you ****ing pigs?
do have a point about policy you care to make?
or is all you are going to say just random invective?
SOROS the Jew who turned Jews into the nazis for money, that NAZI was the BIGGEST FUNDER of one of the main groups in the woman's march'
how much more hitlarian do you want to get?
and its hitlarious to watch people who are taking his dough at this march calling other peole nazis
...and sad
a gif of a masked man hitting another man?
no context?
and...that says what?
are you taking soros the nazi's money
like many of the faux sharia law feminists at the march were?
"Soros Funds the “Woman’s March”
Even the New York Times is commenting on the Astroturfed quality of the “Women’s March” against Trump.
Who bought all those pink hats?
BILLIONAIRE GEORGE SOROS HAS TIES TO MORE THAN 50 ‘PARTNERS’ OF THE WOMEN’S MARCH ON WASHINGTON
http://pamelageller.com/2017/01/soros-funds-womans-march.html/
and you are making remarks about Nuremberg?
OK dear
what eva you say
SOROS is a globalist who wrecks countries like Ukraine
nice work if you can get it...eh?
"George Soros letter reveals globalist plan to destroy the First World by eliminating national borders with global migrant blitzkreig invasions
http://www.naturalnews.com/051869_George_Soros_national_borders_migrant_invasion.html#ixzz4Wdi3XmOt
http://www.naturalnews.com/051869_George_Soros_national_borders_migrant_invasion.html
no context?
and...that says what?
are you taking soros the nazi's money
like many of the faux sharia law feminists at the march were?
"Soros Funds the “Woman’s March”
Even the New York Times is commenting on the Astroturfed quality of the “Women’s March” against Trump.
Who bought all those pink hats?
BILLIONAIRE GEORGE SOROS HAS TIES TO MORE THAN 50 ‘PARTNERS’ OF THE WOMEN’S MARCH ON WASHINGTON
http://pamelageller.com/2017/01/soros-funds-womans-march.html/
and you are making remarks about Nuremberg?
OK dear
what eva you say
SOROS is a globalist who wrecks countries like Ukraine
nice work if you can get it...eh?
"George Soros letter reveals globalist plan to destroy the First World by eliminating national borders with global migrant blitzkreig invasions
http://www.naturalnews.com/051869_George_Soros_national_borders_migrant_invasion.html#ixzz4Wdi3XmOt
http://www.naturalnews.com/051869_George_Soros_national_borders_migrant_invasion.html
Last edited:
If you Nazi pigs don't want a fist in your face, I recommend putting a bullet there. Make America great again.
