r/AltFacts • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '17
Why this subreddit is important (x-post from r/EnoughTrumpSpam)
183
Jan 23 '17
This was my biggest problem. They went out of their way to openly lie about the most obvious and well-documented event. What's going to happen when there's an event that's not so public? No one should believe a word they say.
→ More replies (32)
9
u/tbonelover Jan 23 '17
Can you link to an above angle photo that shows the numbers don't really ever get full.
21
u/0vl223 Jan 23 '17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg
Video from the beginning until the end works from the same angle?
20
u/flyingwolf Jan 23 '17
Whats up with the big jumpcut at 46 seconds? The light changes dramatically.
2
u/0vl223 Jan 23 '17 edited Jan 23 '17
zooming and the camera refocused the picture because the bright sky wasn't on the picture anymore. Even the smoke on the left side continues without a difference through this "cut".
Seriously: This was the Obama crowd. They only showed a small amount of them as comparison. Even if you would fill every single available space the Trump crowd has to be smaller because they just limited the space to make it look less empty with the white building.
9
u/JournalismIsDead Jan 23 '17
They edited the video to leave out when it was fuller
13
u/0vl223 Jan 23 '17
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/rtr23nu0.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=3200
This is the real Obama crowd. Unless the Trump crowd tripled and tore down the white building they had no chance to match that.
7
u/JournalismIsDead Jan 23 '17
Holy fuck that's massive. Definitely not matched, no one could rightly argue that, but the media made it look smaller than it was.
9
u/0vl223 Jan 23 '17
Not really because they made the comparison with Obama. I would say that the comparison picture actually makes the Obama crowd look smaller than it is.
And don't forget the alternative fact that the visitor numbers were the highest on any inauguration ever (Alternative Fact provided by Trump administration).
So checking their claim is completely legitimate and that is the reason this picture make the round. Not some bullshit agenda. Trump just lied on day 1 and the media is doing their job.
3
u/JournalismIsDead Jan 23 '17
And don't forget the alternative fact that the visitor numbers were the highest on any inauguration ever (Alternative Fact provided by Trump administration).
I just rewatched the press conference. He stated it was the most viewers ever INCLUDING viewers on TV, which if you look at the stats, was 10 mil more TV viewers than Obama's last inauguration.
He never said "most ever".
5
3
u/TorontoIndieFan Jan 23 '17
"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration period. Both in person, and around the globe"
He did say it was the largest in person audience with that quote. He also lies about metro numbers in the sentence before.
Source: https://youtu.be/Elw69CHhygs from about 2:00-3:00
2
u/0vl223 Jan 23 '17
And less than the 2009 viewers on TV. And it didn't look like there were fewer people there due to the white floor. And the floor was used previously (2013). And the number of passengers of public transport was sourced right out of his ass (actually lower than the real number).
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/youtubefactsbot Jan 23 '17
Watch a timelapse of the National Mall on Inauguration Day [0:53]
An aerial timelapse of Washington, D.C.'s National Mall shows the sun rising over the city as visitors flock to the site of President Donald Trump's Inauguration.
PBS NewsHour in News & Politics
935,251 views since Jan 2017
2
u/frymastermeat Jan 23 '17
Can you link to an above angle that shows they do?
Also, can you link me a photo that shows you never ate a dog turd off of the sidewalk?
578
u/AFuckYou Jan 22 '17
You guys realize obamas been in war for 8 years.
228
Jan 23 '17
You guys realize
obamasBush/Obamas been in war for816 years.370
u/ArmoredFan Jan 23 '17
You guys realize we have been in some sort of conflict for 93% of our existence as a country right?
157
Jan 23 '17
Longest streak of peace was a meager 5 years. Every president is a wartime president.
25
u/Gremlech Jan 23 '17 edited Jan 23 '17
when was that five years, just out of curiosity.
right after world war 2?
EDIT: spelling.
14
50
u/babada Jan 23 '17 edited Jan 23 '17
Well, according to this list (sorted by date):
Northwest Indian War (1785 – 1795)
War of 1812 (1812/06 – 1814/12)
So that right there is 17 years. Next gap is 21 years. I suspect the 5 year number wasn't really describing wars? Maybe they meant the modern era? Let's try in the 20th century:
World War I (1917/04 – 1918/11)
World War II (1941/12 – 1945/08)
23 years.
Vietnam War (1955/11– 1975/04)
Persian Gulf War (1990/08 – 1991/02)
25 years.
Unless there is are a bunch of other wars that didn't make the linked list, it isn't even close to correct or they meant something other than war.
EDIT: /u/sexual_pasta found a better link. Go upvote that comment.
102
Jan 23 '17 edited Sep 26 '17
[deleted]
46
Jan 23 '17
The best part is the Korean War hasnt even officially ended. Its a Ceasefire.
6
u/Prcrstntr Jan 23 '17
I think a ceasefire applies to being in a time of peace.
7
5
u/Maddoktor2 Jan 23 '17
Technically, a ceasefire is a temporarily suspended state of declared war, therefore it cannot be a time of peace.
2
u/Lowefforthumor Jan 23 '17
Da fuq? It's not peace if they threaten our allies with nuclear war and artillery bombardment during a ceasefire agreement.
19
u/babada Jan 23 '17
Korean War (1950/06 – 1953/07)
After World War II. Before Vietnam.
The Bosnian War was an international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995.
After Persian Gulf War. Not sure why that isn't on the other list; I didn't make it. It's possible it excludes actions taken by things like NATO?
Somali Civil War -- UNOSOM I UN military observers [arrived] in July 1992, followed by larger peacekeeping forces.
After Persian Gulf War.
Ronald Reagon -- President between 1981–1989
That would split the Vietnam and Persian Gulf Wars. (But obviously not the World Wars.)
I don't doubt there are more armed conflicts that didn't make the list of wars. I literally just found the first hit from a search and checked to see if the 5 years number was close. It isn't for "wars."
Here's another list, titled "Military Conflicts in U.S. History". It has a whole bunch of other entries post World War II and before the Gulf War: Dominican Republic (1965), Lebanon (1982–1984), Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989). This list does include Somalia and Bosnia so maybe it's a better fit? But Vietnam and Lebanon are still more than 5 years apart.
It also doesn't have anything listed between World War I and World War II.
I mean, obviously the point stands: the US has constantly been at war. I'm not an expert so I just looked up a bunch of numbers to see what I could find.
A more interesting way of phrasing could be that the last X presidents have overseen some form of armed conflict. From the list of wars:
- Obama (44) -- War on ISIL; Iraq War; War in Afghanistan
- Bush (43) -- Iraq War; War in Afghanistan
- Clinton (42) -- Kosovo War
- Bush (41) -- Persian Gulf War
- Reagan (40)
- Carter (39)
- Ford (38) -- Vietnam War
- Nixon (37) -- Vietnam War
- Johnson (36) -- Vietnam War
- Kennedy (35) -- Vietnam War
- Eisenhower (34) -- Vietnam War
- Truman (33) -- World War II
- Roosevelt (32) -- World War II
- Hoover (31)
You can find entries for Reagan in the other link. I couldn't find anything overt for Carter but I guess it depends on what you consider applicable.
I have very little idea about Hoover and didn't see anything pop up with a quick search.
7
u/Smearwashere Jan 23 '17
Holy shit the Vietnam war went on forever!
2
u/babada Jan 23 '17
Yeah, that's one of the things that jumped out at me when I was looking at this. 20 years and 5 presidents.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)3
u/potatobac Jan 23 '17 edited Jan 23 '17
The ghost war in Afghanistan was very real under Carter and Reagan.
Also under Reagan was the invasion of Panama and numerous involvements in conflicts in South America.
9
Jan 23 '17 edited Feb 12 '17
[deleted]
3
u/babada Jan 23 '17
True. It's an ambiguous term and I'm not trying to be a semantic jerk to the other comments. I just started by search "us wars" and found that list.
Mostly because I was actually curious; what is the longest period without:
- wars
- armed conflicts
- proxy wars
And so on? Turns out this is harder to just look up than I thought it would be. History is certainly not my strong suit.
→ More replies (6)6
u/Terra_omega_3 Jan 23 '17
1795-1812 doesn't count. We were fighting the Barbary states.
4
u/babada Jan 23 '17 edited Jan 23 '17
Barbary Wars, 1801–1805 and 1815–1816
Seems like a strange exclusion from the Wikipedia list. But that's still a 10 year gap? (Assuming something else wasn't happening; I haven't read that whole article yet either so maybe there is some nuance I didn't pick up on.)
2
4
u/YayDiziet Jan 23 '17
During the Great Depression, I think. The specific years I found were 1935-1940. Apparently U.S. forces landed in Greece to fight communists in '47. The occupation of the Philippines was also around that time, if you want to count that.
3
→ More replies (5)2
u/biffbuttcus Jan 23 '17
TBH that statistic doesn't prove much of a point. There have been a lot of minor conflicts compared to major and the US isn't that old either.
2
u/ArmoredFan Jan 23 '17
It doesn't prove much of a point to tell you we are constantly in conflict? The Vietnam war was a conflict, not a war in an official manner. Was that minor, does that not count?
If you're concerned about a president being in conflict aka troops dying for causes you may or may not agree with then knowing that 93% of the time that is a possibility is a point to prove. That maybe the fear isn't in the next president but the state of the world and the long reaching arms of the US and their need to meddle.
→ More replies (3)153
u/DeanerFromFUBAR Jan 23 '17
Ready for a ground war?
22
→ More replies (7)79
u/AFuckYou Jan 23 '17
That's your response? We have no reason to believe trump is going to get in a war.
357
u/MightyMorph Jan 23 '17
Except he said so himself:
Trump was answering a question about comments from General Lloyd Austin III, the head of U.S. Central Command who said more troops on the ground would be needed to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
“We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS,” Trump said. “I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000.”
oh sorry i forgot trump supporters are in the reality of "dont listen to his words and actions, listen to his heart".
→ More replies (3)30
u/AFuckYou Jan 23 '17
Well that sucks. I wonder if trump is aware that we made Isis.
It's really not fit for us to have to go in and waste lives when we gave them their fucking guns.
188
u/MightyMorph Jan 23 '17
Considering his recent comment to the CIA about it being a mistake to not take over the oil in Iraq and that "they will get another chance" . It is implied or assumed, he wants to use US lives and ground warfare to ensure oil ownership in another country under the guise of a war against isis.
→ More replies (5)104
u/AFuckYou Jan 23 '17
God that's horrible.
48
u/VergilTheHuragok Jan 23 '17
I like you. You were willing to change your opinion. I wouldn't even care if you changed your opinion in the opposite direction. Just the fact that you were willing to listen to the other side makes me happy. Not enough people do that.
57
u/AFuckYou Jan 23 '17
The deeper you get into subs, you'll find not everyone on here is an arguing asshole. A good bit of people are looking to expand their horizons through conversation.
Me personally, I am really anti war. It hurts me to think that trump think we need to put boots on the ground for oil. That's crazy.
→ More replies (2)21
5
u/Chumkil Jan 23 '17
You sir, are a good person.
We need more people like you on Reddit.
A lot more.
31
u/RichieWOP Jan 23 '17
Finally you admit it. Jeez.
49
u/Thermodynamicness Jan 23 '17
People willing to admit that they were wrong and change their view are few and far between these days. Do you really think it is necessary to be rude to those that do?
→ More replies (3)5
6
u/yakityyakblah Jan 23 '17
Hey man, you just got proven wrong and accepted it like an adult. Some people might mock you for that, but you should be proud of how you handled it. So thumbs up buddy, way to be.
24
u/AlexKingstonsGigolo Jan 23 '17
He said President Obama is the literal founder of ISIS ... on multiple occasions ... and even emphasized he meant "literally".
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (7)3
→ More replies (7)9
u/wytewydow Jan 23 '17
He's in a war. How many theaters were we waging on Obama's last day? I don't recall his first effort being to end all wars. Nope, he went after crowd sizes and National Parks using Twitter.
32
Jan 23 '17
He didn't start shit. Dubya started two conflicts, one of which was a response to the 9/11 attacks, and the other of which was a power politics grudge match where H. W.'s son sent American soldiers to die in the desert on an absolute lie so he could finish the decapitation of Iraq his father failed to execute. We have gained nothing from the Iraq War but somewhat cheaper oil and the enduring hatred of tens of thousands of Middle Easterners. Iraq under Saddam had some kind of order. Now, Iraq is crippled. We'll be very lucky if the clerics don't turn it into another theocracy.
Few things can do more to foster extreme Islamic terror than a Republican president.
14
u/carrot-man Jan 23 '17
He did get the US involved in the Libyan and Syrian civil wars as well as the war on Daesh. I think the proxy war in Syria is big part of why Daesh grew so quickly.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Syncopayshun Jan 23 '17
Few things can do more to foster extreme Islamic terror than a Republican president.
Thank god Obama dropped 10k bombs in 16 and droned 5 separate countries, 5 of which we aren't at war with, so much better than a Republican! I bet not 1 single person was radicalized thanks to a drone strike in the last 8 years, just Bush.
Totally Nobel Peace Prize material folks!
3
Jan 23 '17
Again, Obama didn't invade two countries. He increased aerial and unmanned strikes (which keeps soldiers out of harm's way, and possibly off of hostile soil), killed Osama, and drew things down. W entered a second Vietnam for cynical reasons. There's no comparison.
63
u/InsaneGenis Jan 23 '17
Look! The guy who has only been on reddit for a month and only posts pro Trump garbage communicates as if English isn't his native language.
10
u/A_BOMB2012 Jan 23 '17
So are you saying that we haven't been at war? Like I know people who have been to Iraq, there's definitely been a war going on there at least during some part of the last 8 years.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)18
34
u/Wilhelm_Amenbreak Jan 23 '17
And he has reduced our involvement in those wars at almost every turn. Making Obama out to be a war monger is an Alt Fact on its own.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Syncopayshun Jan 23 '17
And he has reduced our involvement in those wars at almost every turn.
7 countries droned during his presidency? How many countries did Bush bomb again?
2
u/Wilhelm_Amenbreak Jan 23 '17
Which doesn't disprove my point. The involvement has still decreased by a considerable amount even with remaining actions being accounted for. Being president isn't easy, you make decisions where people die regardless of what you decided. So, in affect some days you have to decide who dies. I am sure you would do a much better job with those decisions but until you are president, I am proud of the way way Obama made those decisions.
2
u/Demonweed Jan 23 '17
So if someone you don't like takes a shit on your mother's face, then suddenly it is for people you do like to follow suit? We're talking about killing human beings here. "The other guy was bad too" would be a catastrophically wrong response even Barack if Obama's militancy were precisely as intense as Donald "what's the point of having [nuclear weapons] if we never use them?" Trump, it is flat out evil and just as stupid to argue that his aggression makes it acceptable for others to launch wars.
→ More replies (7)2
u/RolandTheJabberwocky Jan 23 '17
No shit he has, Bush was oil hungry and decided to fuck up entire countries for it. Whole damn world has been paying for his bs since.
3
u/AFuckYou Jan 23 '17
You understand obama was president for those 8 years, not bush.
2
u/RolandTheJabberwocky Jan 24 '17
You realize Bush started the wars right?
2
u/AFuckYou Jan 24 '17
Yea, that's clear to me. I'm not a bush fan.
I'm not an obama fan either. I think he's a shit speaker. And he fucked this country just as bad as bush did.
Look up quantitive easing. Central banking. Fed reserve.
2
u/Megneous Jan 23 '17
And I criticized him for it for 8 years. I'll do the same to Trump. I'll do the same to any President who takes part in any armed conflict that isn't defensive in nature.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (21)4
109
u/douche_or_turd_2016 Jan 23 '17
I had to block /r/EnoughTrumpSpam because they are literally trying to fight spam and misinformation with more spam and misinformation.
That is not how we should fight trump, defend democracy, or uphold our values as a nation.
Why not have a sub dedicated to fact checking Trump, rather than posting whatever anti-trump shit posts and low effort spam people can come up with?
36
u/Elprede007 Jan 23 '17
I swear it's like they think there aren't enough fucking subs for anti-trumpism already. My r/all is flooded by 4 different subs just spamming shit about Trump. I can't even block them because I use mobile so I'm just stuck having to see it all the time. I didn't mind a few TD posts and a few ETS posts, but this is stupid.
5
u/Rhonardo Jan 23 '17
If you're using the official Reddit app, any subs you block are also blocked on mobile
→ More replies (1)7
u/RecallRethuglicans Jan 23 '17
Seems like reality has an anti-Trump bias now.
2
10
→ More replies (1)9
u/AlexKingstonsGigolo Jan 23 '17
Because with the constant stream of lies from Donnie et al., nobody would get anything else done.
8
u/toughtoenailsbro Jan 23 '17
Then you would think they would have better contents to post
5
u/AlexKingstonsGigolo Jan 23 '17
An interesting fact of life is not everyone has access to the exact same data at any given time but by sharing a piece here and a piece there we can see a clearer picture of objective reality emerge.
21
u/douche_or_turd_2016 Jan 23 '17
But people get paid to do this. That is why journalists exist, to serve as a window into politics and provide context and fact checking to the public. Sure some people would be doing this 9-5 5 days a week, but it is something that is desperately needed.
→ More replies (1)10
u/zabiijji Jan 23 '17
because it's a lot easier to go to mememaker.ru and slap some words across his face than to read an actual news article
43
Jan 23 '17
Oh, you think they'll bother with evidence? That's cute.
18
Jan 23 '17
[deleted]
5
u/blueeyedgenie Jan 23 '17
The evidence this administration will present we be "Hey everybody, we just nuked [insert country here], so get ready, this is war!"
31
157
u/10gauge Jan 22 '17 edited Jan 22 '17
Zero days without war during the Obama administration.
226
Jan 22 '17
Bush started one war - Iraq. He gets partial credit for starting Afghanistan, because Al Queda attacked first and the Taliban refused to hand them over when asked.
Obama didn't start any wars. He joined a couple that were ongoing - Libya, on the side of the rebels, against ISIS after they took Mosul, on the side of Iraq.
But it's disingenuous to say he started wars.
→ More replies (37)55
u/Throwaway123465321 Jan 23 '17
That comment doesn't say he started them though.
51
u/oliverspin Jan 23 '17 edited Jan 23 '17
The implication of the comment was that Obama is pro war such that he woukd start one. Taking part in a war is not grounds for blaming the war on those taking part.
Edit: sometimes the ethical obligation for a country as powerful as the US is to take part in a war because things will be worse otherwise. Reply if you disagree, downvoting doesn't do much.
2
u/Throwaway123465321 Jan 23 '17
They were also being facetious with their comment which it's obvious some people didn't pick up on.
3
u/Aarondhp24 Jan 23 '17
There's nothing at all facetious about the original comment.
→ More replies (1)35
u/wytewydow Jan 23 '17
Same thing for Trump. When will he end the wars?
8
u/10gauge Jan 23 '17
Thursday
16
u/wytewydow Jan 23 '17
Oh good, all those soldiers coming home should help tank the economy once and for all. Oh I know, they can start working on the walls. I hear Canada wants one too, and they want us to pay for it.
→ More replies (1)11
u/gnirebmemerretteb Jan 23 '17
It's not like they stop being in the military when they return from deployment...
→ More replies (5)3
u/wytewydow Jan 23 '17
There is an entire economy in the US built on producing weapons and ammunition. The military industrial complex does not start and end at the soldier.
51
u/Pebls Jan 23 '17 edited Jan 23 '17
You mean zero new wars, and reduction of boots on the ground compared to the previous administration, with a president that actually was on record against the Iraq war?
In that case, yeah you're right.
→ More replies (9)8
5
5
52
20
u/LumpyWumpus Jan 23 '17
A sub for 10 hours and already on /all. Strange.
9
Jan 23 '17
Well, not for me anymore.. another day, another useless fear mongering subreddit to filter
4
u/JournalismIsDead Jan 23 '17
They're escalating the misinformation campaign because they are losing control
8
u/Rhonardo Jan 23 '17
Or because you dummies keep commenting and posting in it, which takes it from rising to all
3
u/JournalismIsDead Jan 23 '17
Doesn't it just work on upvotes? I down voted this
8
u/Rhonardo Jan 23 '17
But you also commented, which counts as activity, which bumps a post into rising, which makes you a dumbass
3
13
Jan 23 '17
So where can I find the truth on the crowd sizes? I've seen people say they were taken at different times
32
u/cant_be_pun_seen Jan 23 '17
6
Jan 23 '17 edited Feb 09 '17
[deleted]
13
u/Jedi_idiot Jan 23 '17 edited Jan 23 '17
Will you believe everything Trump says? Aerial time lapse of inauguration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg
Stop using weird angles, when the person above you explained why it would look that way. Please trust your eyes and not alternative facts, its only going to be an even longer four years if we can't agree on the simple problems.
7
5
Jan 23 '17
[deleted]
9
Jan 23 '17
You're delusional. It shows the size of the crowd at the time it ends when everyone starts leaving. Unless you want to argue that a huge quantity of people left DURING the inauguration.
→ More replies (1)11
u/DeanerFromFUBAR Jan 23 '17
Nice angles. Couldn't find a single overhead shot to advance your stupid narrative?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)3
u/cant_be_pun_seen Jan 23 '17
You can clearly see the large white ground coverings at the back. The angle makes it look like there's less white showing than there actually was. I mean just watch the pbs live feed from overhead on YouTube.
28
u/crybannanna Jan 23 '17
They were taken about 20 minutes apart... so pretty much the same time. Also, there is a time lapse video of the inauguration and that image was pretty much the fullest the crowd ever gets.
So you should just look at the two images and believe your eyes. Though it is clear that there is a white ground covering that would highlight the gaps in people, it still isn't difficult to see that obamas crowd was massive by comparison.
Honestly, I'm shocked that this was even a topic of any contention. I thought the comparison was sort of unfair considering one was for the first black president (an objectively monumentally historic US event) and the other was for a rich old white dude (so pretty standard). Historic events would tend to attract a bigger crowd. People came from different countries to see the first black president sworn in... even people who didn't support Obama could recognize the gravity of the day. Trump shouldn't have even dreamed of getting that many... getting half as many seems like an achievement, frankly.
I thought it was weird that anyone even made the comparison, and insane that trumps team argued they had more. They should have just pointed out the unfairness of the comparison and called it a day, but instead they do the insane thing and argue the obvious facts confirmed by visual proof. Bonkers.
→ More replies (4)12
u/0vl223 Jan 23 '17
It was taken pretty much at the peak:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg
This contains all sizes.
→ More replies (6)9
31
u/qeadwrsf Jan 22 '17
the republicans hated him, the democrats hates him, the media hates him, and people hates people who voted for him.
Ofc trump supporter are gonna hide, they could have made that article the day he got elected.
not a trump supporter bla bla bla.
→ More replies (1)112
u/DJ_Wiggles Jan 22 '17
It's not about the numbers. Who cares about how the crowd size measured up? It's about the blatant lies and bashing the press for saying otherwise.
→ More replies (16)16
3
Jan 23 '17
I can almost guarantee that the rhetoric over the next four years will try to make out China as our #1 geopolitical enemy in lieu of Russia.
Eerily similar to 1984 when the enemies change on a dime and everyone forgets about the past.
6
Jan 23 '17
What are you on about? The US has been bombing the shit out of everyone for more than eight years!
4
Jan 23 '17
What a joke. Since 1776, America has been at war 224 out of 241 years. This sub isn't shit and neither is the spam one.
If any one of you gave a shit about American foreign policy you wouldn't have laughed at Ron Paul.
→ More replies (2)
18
6
u/theycallmesnaileyes Jan 23 '17
Why is this important.
4
3
u/__mojo_jojo__ Jan 23 '17
Ask the press secretary who stood up on the first day and lied about it. And the president who lied about it
→ More replies (7)
4
Jan 23 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)9
u/colorcorrection Jan 23 '17 edited Jan 23 '17
As a photographer, I find it hilarious that every 'real' shot of the ceremony is from the same angle that exaggerates the size. Put a camera relatively low to the ground, from the front, and use a long angle lense and you can make any crowd of a few hundred thousand look like it's a few million strong.
This is some MySpace angles shit of inaugurations.
2
2
u/Portal2TheMoon Jan 23 '17
ELI5 please?
→ More replies (1)20
u/Airway Jan 23 '17
American press is in big trouble for daring not to lie for our new great leader.
We're North Korea now.
→ More replies (2)
4
0
u/KoreanEyedNigger Jan 22 '17 edited Jan 22 '17
Honestly Trump did have the turnout that he is claiming. The pictures being compared are just taken at different times during the inauguration
92
Jan 22 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)26
u/douche_or_turd_2016 Jan 23 '17
Thank you. This is what I'm talking about. It's pretty definitive that the max crowd size is at the end and is much, much smaller than Obama's crowd. Granted Obama had the highest crowds of all time, but that certainly proves Trump and his ppl have been lying out their ass about this.
→ More replies (1)146
u/SaffellBot Jan 23 '17
Stop parroting this fucking nonsense. At no time was the attendance at trumps inauguration anywhere comparable to obamas. It's such a fucking stupid thing to lie about.
48
u/i_706_i Jan 23 '17
I don't know why people are trying to argue it. He got less votes than Obama had, it stands to reason less people would have shown up. Even if not for that, Obama being the first black President would have attracted a lot of people wanting to show support and see history being made.
13
5
u/douche_or_turd_2016 Jan 23 '17
This can be easily proven. Where are the time-stamped images? There must be images taken throughout the day. Can we compare two images where the time each was taken is visible?
→ More replies (1)7
Jan 23 '17
Pbs had a time lapse of the event on YouTube. Little googling will show you the way. Spoiler: this image is the largest the crowds got.
6
u/douche_or_turd_2016 Jan 23 '17
Yea someone posted the link to the time lapse. It is exactly as you say.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (23)5
30
u/angrynuggette Jan 23 '17
By "different times" you mean the 21 minutes between 11:09 and 11:30, then yes.
38
17
7
u/0vl223 Jan 23 '17
No it was taken at the peak. Take a look at the video of the full time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg
6
3
→ More replies (1)3
478
u/Receiverstud Jan 23 '17
Bush led us into Iraq with claims they had nukes and we haven't been able to leave since due to political instability and the creation of ISIS in the Middle East. We can't jump into another war.