Why are we still saying prayers at Presidential Inaugurations in 2017?

[BananaCucho]

Silly Christians, smh

[Alright]

More like praying for that he gets impeached at some point~

[Bunny]

A large portion of the world is religious, it's not very surprising.

[thedougler]

Because America is a CHRISTIAN nation, under God, indivisble, with liberty and justice for all. Atheists BTFO.

Also, HAIL TRUMP our 45th president.

[Helz]

They were more like a speech than a prayer.. Who the fuck scripts out a conversation with their God?

[Orpz]

Nick Offerman's comedy show at my school had a higher turnout. Sad!

http://puu.sh/ttkVY/39243d319d.jpg
Many such cases!

[Helz]

Nick Offerman's comedy show at my school had a higher turnout. Sad!

http://puu.sh/ttkVY/39243d319d.jpg
Many such cases!
I am sure the fact Obamas inaugural celebration having Bruce Springsteen, James Taylor, John Legend, Mary J. Blige, Jon Bon Jovi, will.i.am, Stevie Wonder, Usher, Shakira, U2, John Mellencamp, Josh Groban, Herbie Hancock, Garth Brooks, Beyoncé, and Aretha Franklin didnt have anything to do with that. I would go to a pro-rape celebration if it had that lineup of artists.

I think Trump only had Toby Keith and someone named Sam Moore who I have never herd of..

[MattZed]

I am sure the fact Obamas inaugural celebration having Bruce Springsteen, James Taylor, John Legend, Mary J. Blige, Jon Bon Jovi, will.i.am, Stevie Wonder, Usher, Shakira, U2, John Mellencamp, Josh Groban, Herbie Hancock, Garth Brooks, Beyoncé, and Aretha Franklin didnt have anything to do with that. I would go to a pro-rape celebration if it had that lineup of artists.

I think Trump only had Toby Keith and someone named Sam Moore who I have never herd of..
I would say the main factor is more likely that DC (and nearby) is a heavily Democratic region, so the folks most likely to show up prefer to be there for a Democrat.

[Orpz]

I am sure the fact Obamas inaugural celebration having Bruce Springsteen, James Taylor, John Legend, Mary J. Blige, Jon Bon Jovi, will.i.am, Stevie Wonder, Usher, Shakira, U2, John Mellencamp, Josh Groban, Herbie Hancock, Garth Brooks, Beyoncé, and Aretha Franklin didnt have anything to do with that. I would go to a pro-rape celebration if it had that lineup of artists.

I think Trump only had Toby Keith and someone named Sam Moore who I have never herd of..

That is a pretty good lineup, but I doubt most people were going for the music


I would say the main factor is more likely that DC (and nearby) is a heavily Democratic region, so the folks most likely to show up prefer to be there for a Democrat.

Bush inauguration crowd was packed

[Mateo]

theres hardly anyone at his inaugurations because cuz the bulk of his supporters are at home preparing for kristallnacht 2.0

[SilverWolf]

The only prayers are that he doesn't fuck anything up too bad.

[Mugy]

Prayers are fine, especially if it's just tradition.

My high school always had a prayer during morning assembly(yes every morning, it was a pretty traditional school), and the head prefect would always read a bible verse on mondays.

I would bet a lot of money that the prefects, and even the headmaster who reads the prayer is atheist.

As long as it isn't used to jab, or pushed into our faces I feel it's fine.

[thedougler]

Nick Offerman's comedy show at my school had a higher turnout. Sad!

http://puu.sh/ttkVY/39243d319d.jpg
Many such cases!

To be fair only 4% of the den of rats known as Washington, D.C. voted for Trump. Virtually everyone at the inauguration probably came from out of town. If the city hosting the inauguration universally reviles Trump obviously he's going to get low turnout. If anything the fact DC hates him means he's doing something right.

[Stealthbomber16]

Nick Offerman's comedy show at my school had a higher turnout. Sad!

Many such cases!

I feel more like the fact that Obama was setting records being the first black president encouraged a lot of people to come and see history as opposed to Trump being the first president to be able to do a hand dance.
http://i.imgur.com/5wpUj13.gif

[Cryptonic]

It was also raining during the Trump inauguration. That would discourage a lot of people.

[Alright]

It was also raining during the Trump inauguration. That would discourage a lot of people.

Eh, it was a light drizzle. Also, that didn't stop these protesters.

[Tossangel]

That pic is fake news. Try this one.

22144

[SilverWolf]

Putting a non-sourced pic in and saying the other pic is fake, doesn't really make your point.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/21/sean-spicer/trump-had-biggest-inaugural-crowd-ever-metrics-don/




Trump, 2017
250,000 (https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/822903393026871296) to 600,000 (https://twitter.com/nytmike/status/822966149289754625)


Barack Obama, 2013
1 million


Obama, 2009
1.8 million


George W. Bush, 2005
400,000


Bush, 2001
300,000


Bill Clinton, 1997
250,000


Clinton, 1993
800,000


George H.W. Bush, 1989
300,000

[Cryptonic]

That pic is fake news. Try this one.

22144

Yea I actually just saw a lot of other photos that show that it's just twisting words lol

[Cryptonic]

Eh, it was a light drizzle. Also, that didn't stop these protesters.

That's another good point; Who wants to go to an inauguration when protesters are threatening violence lol I'd rather be at home with that shit going on.

[Cryptonic]

Putting a non-sourced pic in and saying the other pic is fake, doesn't really make your point.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/21/sean-spicer/trump-had-biggest-inaugural-crowd-ever-metrics-don/




Trump, 2017
250,000 (https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/822903393026871296) to 600,000 (https://twitter.com/nytmike/status/822966149289754625)


Barack Obama, 2013
1 million


Obama, 2009
1.8 million


George W. Bush, 2005
400,000


Bush, 2001
300,000


Bill Clinton, 1997
250,000


Clinton, 1993
800,000


George H.W. Bush, 1989
300,000



Did you read the article? It's saying those are estimations based on the picture that Orpz posted

I ain't saying that he drew crowds like Obama lol
Being first black president being sworn in, on a nice day, with minimal threats of violence, in a democratic district with a democratic president. There is absolutely no way Trump could draw the same crowd as Obama. All the reporters saying he pulled in the biggest crowds are just as dumb as the reporters showing the picture hours before inauguration.

[SilverWolf]

Yes, I read the article and the links. They don't count, they estimate. Trump's Press Secretary saying it's the biggest crowd ever is a joke.

[Tossangel]

That's another good point; Who wants to go to an inauguration when protesters are threatening violence lol I'd rather be at home with that shit going on.

I agree. I wouldn't have felt safe attending with the potential for violence.

[PowersThatBe]

Did you read the article? It's saying those are estimations based on the picture that Orpz posted

I ain't saying that he drew crowds like Obama lol
Being first black president being sworn in, on a nice day, with minimal threats of violence, in a democratic district with a democratic president. There is absolutely no way Trump could draw the same crowd as Obama. All the reporters saying he pulled in the biggest crowds are just as dumb as the reporters showing the picture hours before inauguration.

Not really.

The estimations are based on how far each gate goes at each section. They also used date from the MTA to figure out how many people took rides that day.

It's not fake news at all though, he said he had 1.5 million people at his inauguration. There is just absolutely no data or pictures to prove that statement. And yes he said that number at the CIA.

Also his press secretary said it was the most attended inauguration EVER. PERIOD. Which is false. Obama's first inauguration drew in 1.8 million people. Even if Trump's number of 1.5 is correct, he was still short by 300 thousand people.

I'd say he probably got 700 thousand people. How many of that number were protestors? Probably not a significant amount.


The thing that is dangerous here is that the president and his team are deciding to wage war against the media. This type of behavior is typical of dictators and can lead to a very slippery slope.

I just watched a video of Chuck Todd and Kelly Ann Conway discussing this. She would not answer the question of why the crowd sizes were so important to talk about. We have bigger fish to fry than the press secretary coming out and arguing about whether or not the president had 500 thousand people or 700 thousand people. In the long run I'll quote Kelly Ann from the interview I just mentioned "Presidents are not judged by the size of the crowd at inauguration, they are judged by the accomplishments of their administration."

I agree with her, and it scares me when the president and his team engage in such petty bickering. Unfortunately his supporters will ignore all logic and fact to support whatever notion he is espousing. It is a dangerous time we live in, especially when our government undermines the press and no one thinks anything of it. We need to hold the press accountable, but we need to hold the president account even more so.


Regardless of how many people showed up to his inauguration. The fact remains, 3 million more people did not want him as president over HRC. Regardless of his crowd size, the day after his official rise to power MILLIONS of women, and men, from around the world went out to protest him, and his incoming administration.

"Some of these numbers are subject to change, but the historically massive scale of this protest can not be denied. The protests in Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City alone totals over 2 million people. Over 670 marches took place worldwide, with thousands of people also taking part in demonstrations in Tokyo, Dublin, Capetown, Paris, Vienna, and Yangon, to name a few." http://usuncut.com/news/official-womens-march-attendance/

If visual aids are better for you, check out this: http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-photos/


The point is. Arguing over his crowd size is petty and detracts from the larger picture that he is the president, and has a job to do to protect ALL Americans. It is clear that the majority of the people who voted did not want him as president. It is evident that he is bombastic and uses language that is off putting to people. It is evident that many around the world are not excited for him to be president.

His supporters say "give him a chance" but with his cabinet picks, his fighting with protestors, the media, etc on twitter..does not give me hope or trust. Let's hope that he gets his agenda done and still protects the rights of those who feel he is not going to protect us.




OH, and on the 21st of Jan....it rained, was cold, and foggy in DC. Still AT LEAST 500 thousand women showed up in DC alone...Please stop using "violence" or "the weather" as an excuse for this man. Call it what it is. The MAJORITY of American's do not like him. He needs to win our trust, favor, and he needs to PROVEt to US that he was the right person for the job. He does this by doing all he can to ensure America is moved forward, and ALL of us are lifted up. Let's stop engaging in excuse making for this man. He is unpopular with the majority, he still has a strong following. But remember the majority of people who "love him" or "trust him" is much lower than the amount of people that voted for him. So yes, enthusiasm for his inauguration would not be at an all time high. And that's OK. He won.

[Cryptonic]

Not really.

The estimations are based on how far each gate goes at each section. They also used date from the MTA to figure out how many people took rides that day.

It's not fake news at all though, he said he had 1.5 million people at his inauguration. There is just absolutely no data or pictures to prove that statement. And yes he said that number at the CIA.

Also his press secretary said it was the most attended inauguration EVER. PERIOD. Which is false. Obama's first inauguration drew in 1.8 million people. Even if Trump's number of 1.5 is correct, he was still short by 300 thousand people.

I'd say he probably got 700 thousand people. How many of that number were protestors? Probably not a significant amount.


The thing that is dangerous here is that the president and his team are deciding to wage war against the media. This type of behavior is typical of dictators and can lead to a very slippery slope.

I just watched a video of Chuck Todd and Kelly Ann Conway discussing this. She would not answer the question of why the crowd sizes were so important to talk about. We have bigger fish to fry than the press secretary coming out and arguing about whether or not the president had 500 thousand people or 700 thousand people. In the long run I'll quote Kelly Ann from the interview I just mentioned "Presidents are not judged by the size of the crowd at inauguration, they are judged by the accomplishments of their administration."

I agree with her, and it scares me when the president and his team engage in such petty bickering. Unfortunately his supporters will ignore all logic and fact to support whatever notion he is espousing. It is a dangerous time we live in, especially when our government undermines the press and no one thinks anything of it. We need to hold the press accountable, but we need to hold the president account even more so.


Regardless of how many people showed up to his inauguration. The fact remains, 3 million more people did not want him as president over HRC. Regardless of his crowd size, the day after his official rise to power MILLIONS of women, and men, from around the world went out to protest him, and his incoming administration.

"Some of these numbers are subject to change, but the historically massive scale of this protest can not be denied. The protests in Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City alone totals over 2 million people. Over 670 marches took place worldwide, with thousands of people also taking part in demonstrations in Tokyo, Dublin, Capetown, Paris, Vienna, and Yangon, to name a few." http://usuncut.com/news/official-womens-march-attendance/

If visual aids are better for you, check out this: http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-photos/


The point is. Arguing over his crowd size is petty and detracts from the larger picture that he is the president, and has a job to do to protect ALL Americans. It is clear that the majority of the people who voted did not want him as president. It is evident that he is bombastic and uses language that is off putting to people. It is evident that many around the world are not excited for him to be president.

His supporters say "give him a chance" but with his cabinet picks, his fighting with protestors, the media, etc on twitter..does not give me hope or trust. Let's hope that he gets his agenda done and still protects the rights of those who feel he is not going to protect us.

No i'm saying that reporters saying that Trump pulled the biggest crowds are stupid.

[PowersThatBe]

No i'm saying that reporters saying that Trump pulled the biggest crowds are stupid.

Ah gotcha. Well my point still stands as general thought.

Also, Kelly Ann just said he pulled in much larger numbers for his TV ratings of his Inauguration. They used Obama's SECOND inauguration as their comparison. They neglected that Obama had 7 Million more viewers for his 1st inauguration/

[Tossangel]

I don't not think he drew a larger crowd than Obama. However, that photo that has been circulated showing a sparse crowd is pushing a false narrative and trying to fuel the disdain towards the new president of the United States.

[ika]

I don't not think he drew a larger crowd than Obama. However, that photo that has been circulated showing a sparse crowd is pushing a false narrative and trying to fuel the disdain towards the new president of the United States.

Whats the source of your picture then? google images?

[PowersThatBe]

I don't not think he drew a larger crowd than Obama. However, that photo that has been circulated showing a sparse crowd is pushing a false narrative and trying to fuel the disdain towards the new president of the United States.

It's not a false narrative. It says very clearly that, that was the size of the crowd an hour before he was sworn in. Sure, in that hour way more people could have funneled in. But they compared it to Obama's crowd at the same time when he was sworn in for the first time. Pictures don't lie. Sure you can frame a story a certain way. However, things I heard Trump say at the CIA were a LIE.

He said he had 1.5 million people. FALSE.
He said his crowd went all the way back to the Washington Monument. As evidenced by your picture, this is also NOT true.
The media does not need to do anything to fuel disdain for Trump. He does it all on his own, every day, on twitter.


And that's not a "sparse crowd" that is a far away wide angle shot that gives you more depth. Your picture is from ground level, from the perspective for the president. Of course as your closer things look like there are more, when you're farther away you can get the entire scope. It is possible that's all of the people that went and both pictures are true. They're from two different perspectives, and they're going to look drastically different.

[SilverWolf]

I don't not think he drew a larger crowd than Obama. However, that photo that has been circulated showing a sparse crowd is pushing a false narrative and trying to fuel the disdain towards the new president of the United States.

What's false about it? There's lots of pictures of the crowd circulating out there. Why is your picture more correct than the other one? You are the one pushing a narrative to fit what you want portrayed. Exactly what you are accusing others of.

Bottom line here is no one has to fuel any disdain for the POTUS. He does that perfectly well on his own. The fact that his Press Secretary feels the need to outright lie about the numbers, which in the overall scheme of things, is remarkably petty shows exactly what this President and his administration is all about. Well, that and all the petualant tempertantrums on twitter, stupid fights with the media and a basic overall temperment showing he has no ability to know when he should say something and when he should keep his damn mouth shut.

[PowersThatBe]

Oh and the video i watched today. Kelly Ann Conway said that the Trump team was presenting "alternative facts" -- soooooo basically, "alternative facts" is code for "lies"

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/conway-alternative-facts-20170122

[Cryptonic]

What's false about it? There's lots of pictures of the crowd circulating out there. Why is your picture more correct than the other one? You are the one pushing a narrative to fit what you want portrayed. Exactly what you are accusing others of.

Bottom line here is no one has to fuel any disdain for the POTUS. He does that perfectly well on his own. The fact that his Press Secretary feels the need to outright lie about the numbers, which in the overall scheme of things, is remarkably petty shows exactly what this President and his administration is all about. Well, that and all the petualant tempertantrums on twitter, stupid fights with the media and a basic overall temperment showing he has no ability to know when he should say something and when he should keep his damn mouth shut.

Because you can falsely get pictures showing less people by taking at different times, ect.
You can't get pictures of more people without physically editing the image.

[Cryptonic]

Oh and the video i watched today. Kelly Ann Conway said that the Trump team was presenting "alternative facts" -- soooooo basically, "alternative facts" is code for "lies"

Basically.
She's stupid as sin

[PowersThatBe]

Basically.
She's stupid as sin

I always watch videos with her in it. And half way through I'm like, why am I doing this again? She never answers a single question. All she does is pivot.

Chuck Todd took her to task, and I think more in the media will too. She said some scary things, basically, alluding to cutting of NBC b/c she doesn't like Todd's questions. It'll be scary if Trump and his team refuse to go on any news media. Except for ones that don't question them on shit.

[PowersThatBe]

Found a great, wider angle shot from the pres perspective. Kind've gives credence to the first picture that shows the smaller crowd. Here you can see more of the depth and perspective, and the holes.

http://i.imgur.com/yCJSZm0.jpg

[ika]

Because you can falsely get pictures showing less people by taking at different times, ect.
You can't get pictures of more people without physically editing the image.

But the thing is that the picture that toss took has no link or validity right now. If there is a link that can substance it then i could see it, but until then we can basically say her picture was edited as well. Also PTB points about the angle of it still stands.

pedit: PTB beats me to it and basically shows that even if toss pic is valid that the angle of it is misleading

[thedougler]

Did anybody else notice that Bill and Hillary looked hopped up on prozac for the entire inauguration? She had a manic smile like a cornered Hyena. Obama just looked like he had been forced to eat shit.

[Alright]

I always watch videos with her in it. And half way through I'm like, why am I doing this again? She never answers a single question. All she does is pivot.

Chuck Todd took her to task, and I think more in the media will too. She said some scary things, basically, alluding to cutting of NBC b/c she doesn't like Todd's questions. It'll be scary if Trump and his team refuse to go on any news media. Except for ones that don't question them on shit.

My SO just showed me the video of her and Chuck literally talking about this. What the actual fuck, tbh.

[Orpz]

To be fair only 4% of the den of rats known as Washington, D.C. voted for Trump. Virtually everyone at the inauguration probably came from out of town. If the city hosting the inauguration universally reviles Trump obviously he's going to get low turnout. If anything the fact DC hates him means he's doing something right.

Seriously though, why do you think establishment = bad?


That's another good point; Who wants to go to an inauguration when protesters are threatening violence lol I'd rather be at home with that shit going on.

I'm 100% sure Obama's inauguration had comparable threats of violence. Some highlights of protests against him:

http://ugc.reveliststatic.com/gen/constrain/800/800/100/2016/11/16/15/9z/m5/pha1nl69s02qbwe.jpg https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4a3a00b50142a69f6c0a58dcd22b3475-c?convert_to_webp=true

[Cryptonic]

I'm 100% sure Obama's inauguration had comparable threats of violence. Some highlights of protests against him:

http://ugc.reveliststatic.com/gen/constrain/800/800/100/2016/11/16/15/9z/m5/pha1nl69s02qbwe.jpg https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4a3a00b50142a69f6c0a58dcd22b3475-c?convert_to_webp=true

The difference was that the violence was in DC.
Were there riots in DC during Obama's inauguration?

[Orpz]

The difference was that the violence was in DC.
Were there riots in DC during Obama's inauguration?

There were certainly threats of it.

[Alright]

There were certainly threats of it.

It definitely didn't get the world to rise against Obama though.

[Helz]

It's not a false narrative. It says very clearly that, that was the size of the crowd an hour before he was sworn in.
I kinda feel like thats cherry picking. "This is the exact moment when 1 crowd looked really good and the other looked really bad" And lets be real here. Can you guarantee they did not lie about those photos any more than you can challenge the picture Toss presented? Its like in sports when you hear "This is the first touchdown ever scored at exactly 53 seconds into the 2nd quarter by an Indian quarterback who only has 1 testicle... Sure that may be a 'first ever' but put enough conditions on something and anything is. But at the end of the day news stations make their money presenting information people will read- not truth. If the crowds were really so different why not show them during the speech? (Probably because they were not that different and that would not get their add revenue. Someone tell me I am wrong here : P)

Not to piss on anyone's shoes. I hate Trump quite a bit although I hated Hillary quite a bit more (Which is probably how this asshole got elected) but to be straight up I constantly see bullshit news presented as fact by democrats. I can't stress enough that I am not a republican and hate a very large number of republicans but I do posses a first rate bullshit detector and oh my god does it go off a lot when looking at some of this nonsense. I swear people will believe anything if it supports some silly bias they have. I bet if floppydophindicks.com posted an article about how trump is actually a distant relative of Hitler I would end up hearing about it here with people swearing its true.

...This is no different than all the stupid crap people kept saying about Obama being a non-American terrorist.

But once again.. Who the hell scripts their conversations to their God... Those were speeches not prayers and the people giving them should probably charge 9.99 a month for their idea of religion.

[PowersThatBe]

I kinda feel like thats cherry picking. "This is the exact moment when 1 crowd looked really good and the other looked really bad" And lets be real here. Can you guarantee they did not lie about those photos any more than you can challenge the picture Toss presented? Its like in sports when you hear "This is the first touchdown ever scored at exactly 53 seconds into the 2nd quarter by an Indian quarterback who only has 1 testicle... Sure that may be a 'first ever' but put enough conditions on something and anything is. But at the end of the day news stations make their money presenting information people will read- not truth. If the crowds were really so different why not show them during the speech? (Probably because they were not that different and that would not get their add revenue. Someone tell me I am wrong here : P)

Not to piss on anyone's shoes. I hate Trump quite a bit although I hated Hillary quite a bit more (Which is probably how this asshole got elected) but to be straight up I constantly see bullshit news presented as fact by democrats. I can't stress enough that I am not a republican and hate a very large number of republicans but I do posses a first rate bullshit detector and oh my god does it go off a lot when looking at some of this nonsense. I swear people will believe anything if it supports some silly bias they have. I bet if floppydophindicks.com posted an article about how trump is actually a distant relative of Hitler I would end up hearing about it here with people swearing its true.

...This is no different than all the stupid crap people kept saying about Obama being a non-American terrorist.

But once again.. Who the hell scripts their conversations to their God... Those were speeches not prayers and the people giving them should probably charge 9.99 a month for their idea of religion.

They were both from the same time just years apart. Regardless, I posted a picture from the same angle as toss' and it shows the same thing as the pic from the Washington monument side. It matters because his ten is lying about things we can prove to be false. Instead of saying "well it doesn't matter" Kelly Ann Conway says "well it doesn't matter, but it matters that you accept our idea that more people were there." Then trumps press sec says at CIA (and I watched him say this live) "our inauguration was most attended" which is untrue. Visual evidence, data from the transportation authority, and common sense just proves him wrong. He said "it was most attended. PERIOD."

It's not bullshit and the news wasn't spreading false narratives. They didn't pull the crowd they wanted and couldn't admit they didn't pull the numbers. Instead they called the news liars and came up "alternative facts" when called out for lying. C'mon helz we all know that if you do a closer up shot it looks like more things are there. But if you do a wider shot it shows the true perspective.

These are the facts. More people voted for Clinton. More people watched and attended obamas 1st inguaration. More people protested trump yesterday than number of people who supported him at the inauguration. He is not a popular president and Clinton wouldn't have been if she won.

[PowersThatBe]

Oh and USweekly posted toss' photo. I found that in google way earlier. Don't know why she didn't just cite them.

[BananaCucho]

Why are people talking about crowd sizes in a thread about prayers in a governmental event

We need to take our thread back

[PowersThatBe]

Why are people talking about crowd sizes in a thread about prayers in a governmental event

We need to take our thread back

Prayer was a weak topic. Very weak. Sad! Crowd sizes are a much much better topic. Crowd sizes folks, I'll tell you. Crowd sizes. We don't win threads anymore. Size matters folks, and trust me, my size matters.

[Mateo]

Someone tell me I am wrong here : P)

youre wrong

plz stick to killing muslims and leave the thinking to the big boys

[Helz]

youre wrong

plz stick to killing muslims and leave the thinking to the big boys
Classy as always
http://oi67.tinypic.com/20uaa9f.jpg
^This makes me almost as sad as that every banned player from the forum had to be wiped to bring your toxic self back to the community. Please learn how to troll without being so obvious about it

[Mateo]

Classy as always
http://oi67.tinypic.com/20uaa9f.jpg
^This makes me almost as sad as that every banned player from the forum had to be wiped to bring your toxic self back to the community. Please learn how to troll without being so obvious about it

not as sad as 22 veterans suiciding

but its cute that you think im trolling, still cant comprehend that i despise anyone whose only skills are murder and destroying the environment

[oops_ur_dead]

That pic is fake news. Try this one.

22144

That isn't what fake news means. That's a real picture, with a real explanation. Nothing about it is made up. Fake news is news that is wholly fabricated and usually posted on sketchy websites or spread on social media. Like that time I posted a fake article I made up saying that Obama smoked crack in office on a Trump supporter facebook page, which then got quite a few likes and shares.

It seems that Trump and his supporters have appropriated the term "fake news" to mean "news that doesn't support the narrative that Trump is literally Jesus". Sad!

[Helz]

It seems that Trump and his supporters have appropriated the term "fake news" to mean "news that doesn't support the narrative that Trump is literally Jesus". Sad!

Lol. Yeah. There is quite a lot of that.