I can't see why anyone cares how many showed up. Most of the coast is liberal. I would be shocked if anyone who was not a democrat got any crowd of any size.
It is amusing that he gets upset about reporters focusing on the negative. Get over it. Most media is liberal, so what. You slap them around for a year and a half and you expect them to focus on anything good? If anything will hasten his self destruction it is his manic focus on what anyone says about him. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 1:01 PM Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah. In the old days, you would get obfuscation. Now we will just get > bald face lies. > > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > On 1/22/2017 10:59 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > There are not official records for inaugurations for crowd sizes. They > have to look at other sources of data and make best guesses. > > That said, each area of the National Mall is pretty well known to hold a > certain number of people. It's easier when you can count the lawn squares. > > President Trump's inaguration crowd was absent in a lot of squares, which > either means the previous inaguration counts were way too low, or that this > count was estimated far too high. Either way, it's still a blatant lie that > more people were there. > > It's not a big deal that less people were there, it's a big deal that > there is irrefutable evidence that dumps the white house press secretary's > narrative on its face. > > This is a sign of things to come, and it is terrifying. > > > > On Jan 22, 2017 12:36 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: > > It amazes me that an adult at the top of the political pyramid is so > immature to get butt hurt over the size of crowd that showed up. > > Pretty sure D.C. is something like 80% black folk. Having the first black > president is surely something to get stoked about if you are black, and if > you live there, why not make the effort to go see the show. I wonder if > there are crowd size records for all the inaugurations. > > I watched the young pope first two episodes. This reminds me of the > second episode where the pope gets pissed because someone hit in a laser > pointer. > > *From:* Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 11:22 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [OT: Politics] Can we? > > I started reading this: http://www.justfacts.com/ > Some of the statistics really rocked my socks. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: 1/22/2017 1:05:27 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [OT: Politics] Can we? > > > Im pretty confident the next few days is setting the stage to effectively > shutting down "media access". Im all for it in the current environment. > Between press releases, Publicly accessible data, FOIA responses, live > streamed events, and one on one interviews (and yes...twitter) the press > really is the dialup internet method of getting information. We know more > in real time then the press could ever package up and present. The current > mindset of media in press conferences is that of militants (both sides of > the media isle) and there is zero professionalism from either one. Neither > really gives a damn what the answer is anyway, theyre going to report > whatever their preconceived response was either way. > > Question: Did we send B52 Bombers to hit an ISIS target? > > Answer: Yes > > CNN under Obama: Obama authorizes successful airstrike removing 100 ISIS > fighters in final days of his presidency. This act ensures that those who > would commit terror will be addressed accordingly, even during the > transition of power. > > Breitbart under Obama: Obama, the snake furthers military conflict day > before leaving office, leaving all Americans at risk during a tumultuous > time of transition. Kills 100, ensuring a retaliatory response. > > Had the same attack been authorized today: > > CNN under Trump: MILITARY FIASCO: Trump bombs random targets. Top military > officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, refuse to verify there were > no civilian casualties, at least 100 confirmed dead. War crime charges > possible? > > Breitbart under Trump: God Emperor Trump authorized the removal of 100 > ISIS top leaders in his first act as Commander in Chief. Rumors of ISIS > surrender. Barack Obama potentially one of the dead operatives. > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm all for it. I think that everyone is probably just impressed by the > first white house press briefing and the remarks at Langley. What an > amazing public speaker this one is. Have you ever had a friend or friend's > uncle or something who did too much meth? You know how they start out with > one sentence and then before you know it they have told fifteen other > stories before they ever get to the point...if they ever do??? We have > four years of that to look forward to. Just watch the full speech at the > CIA, you will see what I mean. Or don't....save yourself the pain. > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Can we talk about politics yet? :P > > > > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > >
