45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Discussion
chrispmartha said:
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
p1stonhead said:
Pesty said:
What is the point trying to be made? You know thats a Trump fan site yeah? 
Reality has moved on. The BBC,ITV,CNN, even Fox News are now MSM and therefore lying. Only Breitbart, Infowars and random Loon websites can be trusted.
The only point worthy of note above is that the BBC cannot be trusted on political reporting, that's been known for years.
If you really are so foolish as to think that a source alone determines the veracity of information, there's no wonder you and others like you suck up BBC propaganda.
Single sources rarely exist, oftentimes even BBC bias is repeated elsewhere, The Guardian for example
desolate said:
scherzkeks said:
The MLK story was a blatant lie.
The MSM turnout story was a half-truth, and Pravda worthy on multiple levels.
Result over time: a 6% media approval rating and falling. WaPo, AP, CNN all with major errors in reporting that included retractions, threats of lawsuit, and editorials on realigning their news reporting.
All within one election cycle.
So would that be 'nobody' then?The MSM turnout story was a half-truth, and Pravda worthy on multiple levels.
Result over time: a 6% media approval rating and falling. WaPo, AP, CNN all with major errors in reporting that included retractions, threats of lawsuit, and editorials on realigning their news reporting.
All within one election cycle.
Sean Spicer is fighting fire with fire.
"From the president's lens, he was falsely accused of removing the bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. Reporter got it wrong and apologized for it, but still the administration was quickly faulted for something it did not do. I can see why that would anger Donald Trump and the administration. Then when it comes to the crowd sizes, the photo that everybody was talking about that was widely shown on the internet was a picture taken 45 minutes before the swearing-in. I think the only real photo should be the one taken at noon to compare to previous crowd sizes.
Now, at the end of the day, what difference does the crowd size make?"
As for Spicer's claims about the witnesses to the event, I would like to see how they did the numbers. The stories he was responding to speak for themselves.
Edited by scherzkeks on Monday 23 January 09:24
scherzkeks said:
Former Obama-era press secretary Fleischer on the incidents:
"From the president's lens, he was falsely accused of removing the bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. Reporter got it wrong and apologized for it, but still the administration was quickly faulted for something it did not do. I can see why that would anger Donald Trump and the administration. Then when it comes to the crowd sizes, the photo that everybody was talking about that was widely shown on the internet was a picture taken 45 minutes before the swearing-in. I think the only real photo should be the one taken at noon to compare to previous crowd sizes.
Now, at the end of the day, what difference does the crowd size make?"
As for Spicer's claims about the witnesses to the event, I would like to see how they did the numbers. The stories he was responding to speak for themselves.
The Obama crowd pic was taken 45 mins before too. It's a like-for-like comparison. As already pointed out anyone who tries to argue black is white in this way just looks unhinged."From the president's lens, he was falsely accused of removing the bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. Reporter got it wrong and apologized for it, but still the administration was quickly faulted for something it did not do. I can see why that would anger Donald Trump and the administration. Then when it comes to the crowd sizes, the photo that everybody was talking about that was widely shown on the internet was a picture taken 45 minutes before the swearing-in. I think the only real photo should be the one taken at noon to compare to previous crowd sizes.
Now, at the end of the day, what difference does the crowd size make?"
As for Spicer's claims about the witnesses to the event, I would like to see how they did the numbers. The stories he was responding to speak for themselves.
scherzkeks said:
Former Obama-era press secretary Fleischer on the incidents:
"From the president's lens, he was falsely accused of removing the bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. Reporter got it wrong and apologized for it, but still the administration was quickly faulted for something it did not do. I can see why that would anger Donald Trump and the administration. Then when it comes to the crowd sizes, the photo that everybody was talking about that was widely shown on the internet was a picture taken 45 minutes before the swearing-in. I think the only real photo should be the one taken at noon to compare to previous crowd sizes.
Now, at the end of the day, what difference does the crowd size make?"
As for Spicer's claims about the witnesses to the event, I would like to see how they did the numbers. The stories he was responding to speak for themselves.
Spicer made reference to the number of mass transit users to prove the crowd was bigger this time, however he compared the figure for 2013 at 11am with the 2017 full day usage figure. So either poor quality research or a deliberate mistake. Either way, it's provably fake. "From the president's lens, he was falsely accused of removing the bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. Reporter got it wrong and apologized for it, but still the administration was quickly faulted for something it did not do. I can see why that would anger Donald Trump and the administration. Then when it comes to the crowd sizes, the photo that everybody was talking about that was widely shown on the internet was a picture taken 45 minutes before the swearing-in. I think the only real photo should be the one taken at noon to compare to previous crowd sizes.
Now, at the end of the day, what difference does the crowd size make?"
As for Spicer's claims about the witnesses to the event, I would like to see how they did the numbers. The stories he was responding to speak for themselves.
Edited by scherzkeks on Monday 23 January 09:24
The actual numbers are readily available on the official twitter account of Washington Metro - https://twitter.com/wmata .
As for the line in bold - it's not the crowd size which matters, it's that it appears both the president and his press secretary are prepared to go on record with statements which were known to be false at the time they issued them.
scherzkeks said:
Former Obama-era press secretary Fleischer on the incidents:
"From the president's lens, he was falsely accused of removing the bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. Reporter got it wrong and apologized for it, but still the administration was quickly faulted for something it did not do. I can see why that would anger Donald Trump and the administration. Then when it comes to the crowd sizes, the photo that everybody was talking about that was widely shown on the internet was a picture taken 45 minutes before the swearing-in. I think the only real photo should be the one taken at noon to compare to previous crowd sizes.
Now, at the end of the day, what difference does the crowd size make?"
As for Spicer's claims about the witnesses to the event, I would like to see how they did the numbers. The stories he was responding to speak for themselves.
It obviously matters to Trump and his team."From the president's lens, he was falsely accused of removing the bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. Reporter got it wrong and apologized for it, but still the administration was quickly faulted for something it did not do. I can see why that would anger Donald Trump and the administration. Then when it comes to the crowd sizes, the photo that everybody was talking about that was widely shown on the internet was a picture taken 45 minutes before the swearing-in. I think the only real photo should be the one taken at noon to compare to previous crowd sizes.
Now, at the end of the day, what difference does the crowd size make?"
As for Spicer's claims about the witnesses to the event, I would like to see how they did the numbers. The stories he was responding to speak for themselves.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 23 January 09:24
scherzkeks said:
I think the only real photo should be the one taken at noon to compare to previous crowd sizes.
Now, at the end of the day, what difference does the crowd size make?"
There's a timelapse running right up until people start leaving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXgNow, at the end of the day, what difference does the crowd size make?"
But you're absolutely right, the crowd matters not a jot. Not a single iota.
What I am surprised at though is their reaction and willingness to flat out lie and contradict themselves on such obvious a non-issue.
Like I said, no matter your thoughts on the politics, this is very eyebrow raising indeed.
With a different tact they could have easily swiped the legs out from under the media and further gained sympathy to the "bias" and "they have an axe to grind" messages, but instead they did this. It's quite strange really.
To give it some perspective, a few fibs about crowd numbers aren't exactly important when compared with telling whoppers about a stockpile of weapons in a foreign country. Trump has got some catching up to do with previous incumbents if he wants to be known alongside the big boy liars.
968 said:
jsf said:
You are beyond reasoning with, no bulls
t story by the press is inconsequential, it's manor from heaven for someone who wants to discredit them.
It's manna.t story by the press is inconsequential, it's manor from heaven for someone who wants to discredit them.Anyhow, it is utterly inconsequential in comparison with the almost continuously false output from Trumps camp, which they now wish to be the party line. Any of the press core who step out of line are going to be excluded. This is unprecedented in a truly democratic country. Every US president, of all colours, respected press freedom, however this is under genuine threat now.
The fact I disagree with you doesn't mean you have to insert characterisations on a post. Leave that to the more immature posters on this thread.
minimoog said:
The Obama crowd pic was taken 45 mins before too. It's a like-for-like comparison. As already pointed out anyone who tries to argue black is white in this way just looks unhinged.
There wasn't weeks of people saying there would be protests and riots. People were not lining up linking arms and stopping people getting to the area. security was higher too.The media are on full in attack mode because they are butthurt liberals. Obama got an easy ride trump is gong to be scrutinised to the nth degree.
Trumps team should call it all out, of course obama got more people. What difference at this time does it make but the media are deliberaly showing pictures to show negativity.
Can someone fill me in on what everyone is currently arguing about?
If I understand;
MSM runs with two images comparing Obama and Trump's inaugurations, making out Trumps isn't that well attended?
People argue this is evidence no one likes him?
CNN Gigapixel image shows there was a huge crowd?
People now arguing semantics about how those images were a comparison at a certain particular time and how it's all irrelevant anyway?
Is that about the gist of it?
If I understand;
MSM runs with two images comparing Obama and Trump's inaugurations, making out Trumps isn't that well attended?
People argue this is evidence no one likes him?
CNN Gigapixel image shows there was a huge crowd?
People now arguing semantics about how those images were a comparison at a certain particular time and how it's all irrelevant anyway?
Is that about the gist of it?
Pesty said:
minimoog said:
The Obama crowd pic was taken 45 mins before too. It's a like-for-like comparison. As already pointed out anyone who tries to argue black is white in this way just looks unhinged.
There wasn't weeks of people saying there would be protests and riots. People were not lining up linking arms and stopping people getting to the area. security was higher too.The media are on full in attack mode because they are butthurt liberals. Obama got an easy ride trump is gong to be scrutinised to the nth degree.
Trumps team should call it all out, of course obama got more people. What difference at this time does it make but the media are deliberaly showing pictures to show negativity.
Oakey said:
Can someone fill me in on what everyone is currently arguing about?
If I understand;
MSM runs with two images comparing Obama and Trump's inaugurations, making out Trumps isn't that well attended?
People argue this is evidence no one likes him?
CNN Gigapixel image shows there was a huge crowd?
People now arguing semantics about how those images were a comparison at a certain particular time and how it's all irrelevant anyway?
Is that about the gist of it?
Kind of, you have the gist of it but then said non-story then snowballs due to furious whitehouse press conference. It's worth a google if you've not seen it, it's quite funny If I understand;
MSM runs with two images comparing Obama and Trump's inaugurations, making out Trumps isn't that well attended?
People argue this is evidence no one likes him?
CNN Gigapixel image shows there was a huge crowd?
People now arguing semantics about how those images were a comparison at a certain particular time and how it's all irrelevant anyway?
Is that about the gist of it?
Pesty said:
minimoog said:
The Obama crowd pic was taken 45 mins before too. It's a like-for-like comparison. As already pointed out anyone who tries to argue black is white in this way just looks unhinged.
There wasn't weeks of people saying there would be protests and riots. People were not lining up linking arms and stopping people getting to the area. security was higher too.The media are on full in attack mode because they are butthurt liberals. Obama got an easy ride trump is gong to be scrutinised to the nth degree.
Trumps team should call it all out, of course obama got more people. What difference at this time does it make but the media are deliberaly showing pictures to show negativity.
Press secretary wouldn't admit fewer people were present, in fact he gave misleading figures for mass transit usage when explaining the crowd differences, so doing exactly what the MSM are forever being accused of.
Oakey said:
Can someone fill me in on what everyone is currently arguing about?
If I understand;
MSM runs with two images comparing Obama and Trump's inaugurations, making out Trumps isn't that well attended?
People argue this is evidence no one likes him?
CNN Gigapixel image shows there was a huge crowd?
People now arguing semantics about how those images were a comparison at a certain particular time and how it's all irrelevant anyway?
Is that about the gist of it?
I think that some people think that a smaller crowd means that he really isn't the President.If I understand;
MSM runs with two images comparing Obama and Trump's inaugurations, making out Trumps isn't that well attended?
People argue this is evidence no one likes him?
CNN Gigapixel image shows there was a huge crowd?
People now arguing semantics about how those images were a comparison at a certain particular time and how it's all irrelevant anyway?
Is that about the gist of it?
Losers will take solace wherever they can find it.
Cold said:
To give it some perspective, a few fibs about crowd numbers aren't exactly important when compared with telling whoppers about a stockpile of weapons in a foreign country. Trump has got some catching up to do with previous incumbents if he wants to be known alongside the big boy liars.
To give it a bit more perspective, we don't know all of the numbers Spicer is using. Crowd numbers are also notoriously difficult to calculate. I think there is no question that Obama had a larger crowd in-person, but why does it matter? Many things could account for that.Furthermore, why is the media circulating a photo that does not represent the crowd on hand during the swearing-in? Multiple other photos back this up this purposeful effort to manipulate.
Of course, we know the answer. No need to repeat again.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff