Alternative Facts

[StCapps]

Wrong angle, Kath will only accept the angle the MSM used or she is going to give the mainstream media the benefit of the doubt. Even if the other angle clearly proves that crowd was far larger than the photo at 11:05 showed, she'll ignore it until she sees that angle.

[K@th]

]Right and until you see one you are going to buy the obvious lies that the mainstream media peddled to you. We get it.

That's because the rest of the data doesn't equate to him having the numbers Obama did. Whether or not you like it the Metro numbers are absolutely indicative of the type of crowd size. . Look at the numbers on the Metro that next day a hundred thousand more Riders and the pictures for the next day prove that there were more people then on Friday.

In terms of Hotel occupancy and Metro Riders, they absolutely validate crowd size.

Show me a picture that includes the space between the Press building and the monument. The picture you're providing doesn't include that space and that is important because a lot of people fit in that space

[SuburbanFarmer]

[

Are you deliberately avoiding this?

We are responding to the MSM lying about there being hardly anybody there. They ran with photos taken hours before the event as if those were taken during the event. This kind of lying propaganda is really pissing people off.

Not hours. 25 minutes. Obama 11:30 comparing Trump 11:05 pics

Are you cognitively able to see this image?

Do you think we can't? You remember yourself barking at Hillary's sham events that look packed because of the camera angle? Did you already forget that?



Again, this does not fucking matter anyway. The fact that you're still braying over it tells me that your dogma is threatened.

[StCapps]

That's because the rest of the data doesn't equate to him having the numbers Obama did. Whether or not you like it the Metro numbers are absolutely indicative of the type of crowd size. . Look at the numbers on the Metro that next day a hundred thousand more Riders and the pictures for the next day prove that there were more people then on Friday.

No they aren't indicative. No one is claiming Trump had bigger numbers than Obama, other than Sean Spicer. Trump didn't have the smallest crowd ever, if the metro sales were indicative of inauguration attendance than clearly hardly anyone showed up Trump inauguration, yet that clearly is not true even if you look at photos that deliberately low ball the crowd size.

In terms of Hotel occupancy and Metro Riders, they absolutely validate crowd size.

Show me a picture that includes the space between the Press building and the monument. The picture you're providing doesn't include that space and that is important because a lot of people fit in that space

No they don't validate crowd size. Not all metro riders attended the inauguration, nor did all hotel occupants, metro riders who stayed at a hotel are not only people who attended the inauguration. Correlation doesn't equal causation. The crowd size at Trump's inauguration dwarfed metro ticket sales, stop bringing them up some kind of proof of a small crowd size, they have little to do with each other and simple eyeball test of Trump's crowd size shows that.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Show me a picture that includes the space between the Press building and the monument. The picture you're providing doesn't include that space and that is important because a lot of people fit in that space

No they don't validate crowd size. Not all metro riders attended the inauguration, nor did all hotel occupants, metro riders who stayed at a hotel are not only people who attended the inauguration. Correlation doesn't equal causation. The crowd size at Trump's inauguration dwarfed metro ticket sales, stop bringing them up some kind of proof.[/quote]

How is it not relevant to use the only directly-quantifiable evidence of attendance? The direct year-over-year comparison of how many people took a train, or stayed in local hotels? I agree that it's nothing approaching scientific, but none of this is. It's about Trumpy's feelz, and nothing more.

[StCapps]

How is it not relevant to use the only directly-quantifiable evidence of attendance? The direct year-over-year comparison of how many people took a train, or stayed in local hotels? I agree that it's nothing approaching scientific, but none of this is. It's about Trumpy's feelz, and nothing more.

If the crowd size lined up with the numbers, than it would be relevant. A simple eyeball test shows the crowd size dwarfed metro ticket sales, so clearly that is a rather shitty indicator in this particular instance. In past years it was a probably a much better indicator than it was this time around, but even then correlation doesn't equal causation. Maybe if they actually sold tickets to the inauguration you'd have numbers that mean a whole hell of a lot, but as it stands the numbers we have don't tell us much at all.

[SuburbanFarmer]

How is it not relevant to use the only directly-quantifiable evidence of attendance? The direct year-over-year comparison of how many people took a train, or stayed in local hotels? I agree that it's nothing approaching scientific, but none of this is. It's about Trumpy's feelz, and nothing more.

If the crowd size lined up with the numbers, than it would be relevant. A simple eyeball test shows the crowd size dwarfed metro ticket sales, so clearly that is a rather shitty indicator in this particular instance. In past years it was a probably a much better indicator than it was this time around, but even then correlation doesn't equal causation.

nobody is pretending that Metro Tickets = Crowd Size. it's a statistical tool used to compare the relative rider surge in 2009/2013/2017. You could also say that 'local hotels were booked 80% more than usual in 2009, and 40% more than usual in 2017, therefore 2009 was bigger'. It's not going to get you to an absolute count of attendance, but it's relevant.

Since they seem to have been TAKING TICKETS for the event, one should probably just ask the government to ADD UP THE FUCKING TICKETS that were punched, and be done with it. Instead, we're going to drag out this little guessing distraction until Russia bombs something.

[StCapps]

nobody is pretending that Metro Tickets = Crowd Size. it's a statistical tool used to compare the relative rider surge in 2009/2013/2017. You could also say that 'local hotels were booked 80% more than usual in 2009, and 40% more than usual in 2017, therefore 2009 was bigger'. It's not going to get you to an absolute count of attendance, but it's relevant.

It would be relevant if anyone was arguing that Trump's crowd was bigger than Obama's, but Sean Spicer is the only one making that claim. No one in this thread thinks Trump had a bigger crowd than Obama.

[SuburbanFarmer]

nobody is pretending that Metro Tickets = Crowd Size. it's a statistical tool used to compare the relative rider surge in 2009/2013/2017. You could also say that 'local hotels were booked 80% more than usual in 2009, and 40% more than usual in 2017, therefore 2009 was bigger'. It's not going to get you to an absolute count of attendance, but it's relevant.

It would be relevant if anyone was arguing that Trump's crowd was bigger than Obama's, but Sean Spicer is the only one making that claim. No one in this thread thinks Obama didn't have a bigger crowd than Trump.

Great. So we're done with this crap?

[SilverEagle]

Show me a picture that includes the space between the Press building and the monument. The picture you're providing doesn't include that space and that is important because a lot of people fit in that space

No they don't validate crowd size. Not all metro riders attended the inauguration, nor did all hotel occupants, metro riders who stayed at a hotel are not only people who attended the inauguration. Correlation doesn't equal causation. The crowd size at Trump's inauguration dwarfed metro ticket sales, stop bringing them up some kind of proof.

Who gives a shit about how many people showed up for this inauguration vs that inauguration? I mean Trump apparently does but why should any of us? He's POTUS and that is whats important. I'm sure Obama had a larger crowd, you know being the first black POTUS and all. For people watching Obama's inauguration was like a chance to view a living Unicorn. The unemployed black masses doesn't give two shits about any other inauguration.