Anonymous #2 21w

cope harder

16

Anonymous #3 21w

I know, it’s hard for you to imagine a world where people can be in two places at once

-4

Anonymous #3 21w

If I’m wrong why don’t you explain instead of being such a baby?

-5

🪞

-4

How does this how the amount of people watching from home?

-7

Anonymous #2 21w

This is 1991 compared to 2025

11

You’re still not showing any numbers. Did 1991 have the streaming services that 2025 does?

-7

I was saying that there could’ve been more people watching on tv. Keyword: could’ve. I made no assertion, and you fail to even address the notion

-7

Not diverting. You clearly don’t understand that it’s not unreasonable to say that a parade in one fraction of the country isn’t going to physically garner as many people as online if in a society people would more likely watch from home. You seemed to contest the notion, but haven’t anything to show for a reason why. That’s on YOU.

-4

You’re still not comprehending what I’m saying. I gave you speculation as to a reasonable cause for why not a lot of people showed up. You contested that that wasn’t the case. You made that assertion, you finish it. What is true about this situation that makes that speculation false?

-3

I guess you’ve run out of things to say

-4

Anonymous #2 21w

You’re all bark and no bite

-4

Dang I’m sorry for being impartial. Not my fault you can’t back up your own claims.

-3

Anonymous #2 21w

Notice how there were protests all over the world for No More Kings which were wildly successful….. yet apparently no one could show up bc people watch TV instead for these things, according to your logic. This can only mean a few things, one which is pretty funny and accurate being people who are against trump are way more impassioned about their country than people who like trump.

5

Anonymous #5 21w

Bro you do you realize a protest is meant to be physical right? Nobody protests from home unless it’s an internet endeavor. This was a parade to celebrate the army, in the same sense one might watch the thanksgiving parade from home or if they are nearby travel to see it physically. You’re comparing things that are completely different in nature. Not to mention that the parade for the army was in DC only, not something happening at the same time across several states.

-2

Anonymous #2 21w

Still funny that visually more people showed up for the protests than the parade, stop coping and accept his parade failed

6

Anonymous #2 21w

Bro ive seen more people at the average macys parade than that military one

3

Anonymous #6 21w

You don’t have to like the parade to comprehend that not everyone is going to travel physically if they can watch from home. Why is this so hard to understand, I’m only pointing out that the physical attendance doesn’t account for everyone actively watching the parade.

-2

Yea anyone. Exactly, you can’t account for total viewership by physical attendance alone.

-1

Anonymous #2 21w

… so, can we say that 3 billion people world wide were watching the no more kings protests then?

3

Anonymous #2 21w

Physical and virtual attendance are tied in terms of public interest, if less people showed up physically then likely less people show up virtually. A large magnitude more of people attended the protests physically compared to the parade, so it’s reasonable to think that more people also watched virtually.

3

Anonymous #2 21w

You dont have to like the truth to comprehend it but just think for a minute and shit might make sense

3

Doesn’t mean anything in the case of protest, but a national parade is measured both in physical attendance and televised viewership. Not my fault someone who’s 1000 miles away isn’t going to go to DC for a weekend for a parade that can be viewed live on television.

0

Anonymous #2 21w

Dude the people IN dc didnt want to show up

1

I’m saying it’s a possibility, dumbass. You keep asserting that it’s not the case, why haven’t I gotten anything from you?

-1

Anonymous #2 21w

Pull up these viewership numbers then, most televised news station showed both the parade and the protests. Unless 90% of conservatives were watching with a VPN and pirating the parade then even by your standards his parade fell short. the truth hurts sometimes

5

Anonymous #2 21w

When making a claim, the burden of proof is on you. We cant proof a negative

3

Anonymous #5 21w

I never made a claim. If he wants to say that it’s not the case, he has to provide proof that something that is true resulted in my speculation being false

-1

Exactly, dudes saying “just trust me people watched” when every bit of reality says otherwise. Mf is a slave to Fox News

4

Anonymous #2 21w

YOU CANT PROVE A NEGATIVE. Prove leprechauns dont exist. Give definitive proof.

3

Bros a little bitch fencesitter. Too scared to admit he likes trump cause of how unpopular trump is rn

3

Anonymous #5 21w

I love watching trumpers jump back and forth on their morals to try and justify why they support trump

4

Anonymous #6 21w

Why are you bringing in something that is irrelevant? Have you run out of argument?

-1

I’m being precise. It was never an argument to begin with, but you decided to get yourself muddy and now you’re here avoiding your burdens and throwing your conclusions to justify being an asshole

0

Anonymous #2 21w

Im lookin through my comments to find the irrelevant bit, the one about y’all’s morals jumping requires the most thought so I’ll break it down for you. Republicans always stand on the ground of “fact over feelings” but in this sense yall are all willingly looking away and claiming what a success this parade was while every bit of reality and truth says otherwise

3

Anonymous #6 21w

Yall? I’ve taken no stance whatsoever on my political positions in anything and you being your crap onto the table like it’s relevant. It’s completely reasonable to speculate that a parade that is both televised and physically active can get attendance through both mediums.

0

Anonymous #2 21w

My dude dont be stupid. No ones falling for this BS, taking time out of your day to make up an explanation to why no one showed up to trumps b-day party is blatant support. The fact that you cant make a hardline stance doesnt make you a rationalist, it makes you an indecisive bitch

2

Anonymous #2 21w

And both mediums dont share variance with public attendance? Why would virtual attendance be significantly higher than physical for one event and not another? Think for a minute and get back to me

2

You don’t understand. I never said whether or not there was more or less in online attendance, just that to get the total requires factoring in both and not one over the other

-1

Anonymous #6 21w

Because television is more accessible than the physical location of the parade

-1

Anonymous #2 21w

Yes, but if people who live there didnt bother to show up, why would people who dont give a shit

2

Anonymous #2 21w

Factoring both into account, even estimating that virtual attendance was MUCH higher than physical for the parade, the protests still outweighed the parade. Take a good look at the real world and stop lying to yourself

3

Anonymous #2 21w

Again, unless everyone watched the parade through a VPN or pirated it through a secondary source, the parade still underperformed. Stop contorting yourself to suck Donald’s dick and just look

3

Anonymous #2 21w

Using logic, we can assume that there is a correlation between online viewership and public in person attendance. Its really that simple, yet youre REALLY pushing this idea that “well we dont KNOW how many people like trump”

4

Anonymous #5 21w

Because it’s the nation’s army, not DC’s army. One population not attending physically does not constitute that another population won’t

0

You clearly didn’t read it completely. A claim is a definitive stance. I opened to the possibility of individuals streaming

0

Anonymous #2 21w

Still waiting on the viewership numbers

2

Anonymous #2 21w

“Opened the possibility to a claim” how many hurdles you wanna jump over for that opinion?

3

Anonymous #6 21w

When did I say definitely “It’s because more people were streaming it than physically” ?

0

Anonymous #2 21w

Well whats your point then, you opened the possibility now take advantage of it baby

3

Anonymous #2 21w

Again, we can use basic logic here. DC, believe it or not, is part of the nation. And people in DC didnt bother to show up. So youre argument is that its possible that people are secretly happy about this parade everywhere BUT dc. Like, i can make insane claims that might be possible too, i believe its possible trump is secretly a doppleganger clone of literal hitler. And you couldnt prove me wrong, but its stupid to say, just like what youre saying

3

Anonymous #6 21w

It’s a reasonable speculation, if I had definitive numbers on online viewership I would pick a stance. Why would I be irresponsible enough to take a strong position of something if I don’t have the full picture?

0

Anonymous #2 21w

Then why speculate at all. Literally youre going to”well anything is possible” that doesn’t add shit to the discourse

2

Anonymous #5 21w

If you want to say that you can but all you’ve done is speculate on what’s happening.

0

Anonymous #2 21w

Then why you commenting? I have a strong stance and evidence that online viewership and physical viewership shows the parade was abysmal compared to protests. Yet again i ask, whats your point in ‘opening the possibility’.

1

Anonymous #5 21w

Because people are taking a definitive stance on it without the full picture.

0

Anonymous #6 21w

Ok show the numbers then for the online viewership

-1

Anonymous #2 21w

So that this can be closed

-1

Anonymous #2 21w

Bro youre the one making the claim that its possible

3

Anonymous #5 21w

Saying something is possible is different from saying something is true

0

It’s not my burden of proof because I never made the statement whether something was equivocally true

0

Anonymous #2 21w

91k views

1

Anonymous #2 21w

Saying something is possible is trying to entertain it is possible. Usually youd have something to back that up, otherwise youre just wildly speculating as well

3

Anonymous #6 21w

630k views, even picked fox as its the most watched for republicans.

2

Anonymous #2 21w

First google search definitely isn’t the most accurate, but with a difference that big it may just be significant

1

Anonymous #6 21w

Seems like you’ve found one outlet that was streaming it. Hopefully there’s a count that will tell us the viewership from all of the outlets. I appreciate this though, regardless of Fox News being a bs news station like the rest this does yield some data

0

Anonymous #6 21w

The comment above this was before you made this comment so it’s a bit late. Thanks tho

1

Anonymous #2 21w

Honestly this might be the one thing we agree on, stats dont always equal reality. But i dont think you even need stats to look online and see the view differences

1

Anonymous #6 21w

All I can attest to is that people focus more on things they don’t like than things they do

1

Anonymous #2 21w

So you attest that more people watched and attended the protests than the parade?

1

Anonymous #6 21w

Stats aren’t replicas of reality, but they get close enough where there isn’t a significant difference

1

Anonymous #6 21w

I mean if you want to measure a protest by online attendance you can. In that case, it would be numbered by people watching it from headlines, watching from streams, etc.

1

Anonymous #2 21w

I ain’t gonna argue stats with you cause thats my major but i honestly do agree stats are NOT reality, especially surveys and political shit. They’re the most easily manipulated datapool. But the application to reality is what really matters, are the stats representative of the truth. And in this case you don’t even need to calculate significance causes the numbers show enough difference. No stats needed, just common sense

1

Anonymous #6 21w

I never wanted to make it out that there were more parade attendees than protestors

1

Anonymous #2 21w

Well then what’s your point about online viewership? Im gon keep asking cause you ‘opened the possibility’ either stand your ground or stfu

1

Anonymous #2 21w

Just that if we’re going to say the parade did terrible, to at least take into account the online numbers before making the assertion

1

Anonymous #2 21w

I am looking at the online numbers, we can make an assertion RIGHT NOW. What makes you think 2 million more people are gonna watch the parade online tomorrow instead of today? What’s going to change in the coming week?

1

Anonymous #2 21w

Of course I could’ve worded it better but my whole intention was to say to measure the other mediums before putting it down. Which is why I brought up accessibility, to at least give some merit as to why it’s worth looking into before taking a position

1

Anonymous #2 21w

Bro ur fucking lobotomized

1