[Dogzilla]

I'm pretty sure that Donnie's impeachment will be better attended than his inauguration.

[sillydaddy]

Dog having one of his wet dreams.....again! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[johnforbes]

As CNN's own 360 degree picture showed, Trump's inauguration was as well attended as the socialist deity Barry's.

[Dogzilla]

Forbes.....we've all seen the pics. You're lying. A bald faced lie.

[Intrepid]

The only thing you've ever been sure of is that you aren't interested in pussy that's old enough to have hair.

You admitted that right here shorteyes.

Why didn't any of the fathers of thise girls beat you with a pool cue?
Oh, that's right. Getting them broken in early is common in your part of bubba land. Daddy was probably fucking them too.

[Dogzilla]

Sounds like the voice of experience right there!

[sillydaddy]

Maybe Dog will provide us with a link to the pics of Hillary's inauguration so a fair comparison can be made.. :o

[Dogzilla]

Ummmm.....I believe you are once more mistaken, SillyShit. Maybe go back and read JJ's post comparison.

[sillydaddy]

I'm thinking Trump is not as upset about the attendance at his inauguration...
as Hillary is at not having an inauguration at all.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Dogzilla]

Vodka

[Dogzilla]

I do see your point, but I'm not sure that I agree with your outcome. tRump is definitely devastated that he didn't "win" the "Yuuugest crowd ever".

[sillydaddy]

Devastated......Yeah, sure Dog but it's the kind of devastation you can live with..... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[johnforbes]

Dogzilla, it is a lie for anybody to say Trump's inauguration didn't have as many people.

It did.

CNN's own 360 pic shows that.

Also, there was increased security to slow down the fill-in of the crowds.

That photo you are thinking of (from the NY Times) was a lie because it compared crowds at different times.

But that is the essence of Political Correctness -- dishonesty.

[Dogzilla]

That's what you say, Forbes (and I've heard that spin before), but that's not what the evidence has proven to be true.

tRump is a disaster for us all. It's clearly obvious, and it's ok for you to admit it. tRump duped a lot of people.

[johnforbes]

There was increased security for Trump's inaugural, and it was very necessary given the attempts of the Left to disrupt events.

This caused slow filling in of the crowd space.

The NY Times photo was very dishonest and deliberately so.

CNN's own 360 degree photo, which anybody can look at, proves that Trump's crowd was just as large as Barry's.

The Left lied about this.

[Dogzilla]

If you get a chance, would you post a link to that? Thanks

[johnforbes]

Sure, I made it a thread.

What the Times did was post a photo with Barry's crowd all filled in, but Trump's not yet filled in (rain, protests, extra security).

Trump's crowd did not fill in until just before the actual inauguration.

What the Times did, and what the Left did, was just dishonest.

[Intrepid]

Won't matter. Facts will never deter Dogshit's grim determination to hold on to his Rachal Madcow provided bias and utter bullshit.

Reality is something all libtards think they can alter if the tantrum they throw is large enough and they make enough noise.

We wish they would attempt that tried and true two year old's tactic of holding their breath until they turn blue, and fifteen or twenty minutes beyond, just to make certain.

[Dogzilla]

Thanks, JJ....It indeed does look different from what we've previously been shown.

[johnforbes]

There are several things we can speculate about at all future inaugurals.

First, the filling in will be slower because of increased security. This will be even more true as social media allow protest people to coordinate better.

Second, to compare photos we need comparable timestamps so that we know genuinely comparable times.

Third, you can see on the gigapixel picture that many in the audience were staring at their cell phones, so they were really as much in cyberspace as in a chair in the audience. So the actual meaning of "attending" is changing.

And what does any of it mean anyhow now that we know almost all the 2016 polls were wrong?

Most of the 2017 polls showing Trump's popularity waning were from very small samples -- less than 1000 people.

Those people were merely adults, not registered or likely voters, and they were people who answered on landlines.

Who answers a landline poll?