45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

[turbobloke]

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.

Likewise anyone who thinks it matters.

Aren't right-on liberal lefties meant to be against populism?

When they're not whining about Trump's victory, of course.

Four, maybe eight, more years of entertainment courtesy of sore losers many not even in the USA...

[Hugo a Gogo]

it's amazing how the Trump camp has successfully spun around the whole 'fake news' debate

it started because of bullst facebook pretend news links, from sites masquerading as real news agencies, but they've now made it about the 'main stream media' - so anyone kinds recognisable, or who's been going for a while, or anyone at all really, and they can all be dismissed as 'fake news'

[Oakey]

roachcoach said:

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

Thanks, I'll check it out

[Hugo a Gogo]

scherzkeks said:

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.

please link a big overhead shot showing the large crowds, I haven't seen one

[hyphen]

Jasandjules said:

The poor lefties, what do they do now?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/21/do...

Move on from last years news?

[minimoog]

scherzkeks said:

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.

The only people talking about the size of the crowd are the trumpets.

Everyone else is talking about what shameless liars Trump, Spicer, and Kelly-Ann 'Alternative Facts' Conway are. At which point the trumpets all stick their fingers in their ears and start talking about something else like press bias, WMDs (as if they have the remotest relevance to Trump's presidency), 3-month old newspaper articles on the TPP, or whatever.

[scherzkeks]

Hugo a Gogo said:

it's amazing how the Trump camp has successfully spun around the whole 'fake news' debate

it started because of bullst facebook pretend news links, from sites masquerading as real news agencies, but they've now made it about the 'main stream media' - so anyone kinds recognisable, or who's been going for a while, or anyone at all really, and they can all be dismissed as 'fake news'

The fake news narrative was classic psychological projection.

That it coincided with numerous MSM retractions, editorials dedicated to realigning reporting with the truth, and lawsuits made it all the richer.

My Kissenger quote is once again applicable.

[anonymous-user]

NEEP said:

968 said:

jsf said:

You are beyond reasoning with, no bullst story by the press is inconsequential, it's manor from heaven for someone who wants to discredit them.

It's manna.

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.

I think you'll find it's "Press corps"

[hyphen]

To change the subject, what do people think will happen regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict under Trump?

Following Trumps inauguration, Israel has announced plans to build hundreds of new homes in the illegaly occupied East Jerusalem. US is also agreeing to move its embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel...

Do we see peace ahead, or a disaster?

[walm]

scherzkeks said:

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?

Because the press secretary and Trump himself are blatantly lying about it and then throwing a hissy fit about the press, who happened to be telling the truth!!

[Halb]

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?

They showed a pic showing the place wasn't stacked, like it had been with Obama, they always do this at this sort of events, 24 hour news need grist, it would have been an irrelevance and forgotten in a lunch break if it hadn't been taken so strongly by the new admin. Instead it turned into some bizarre Orwellian war.

[Pesty]

Hey she's a trump supporter let's set her on fire.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=88&v...

[johnxjsc1985]

anyone hear the story of the Policemen in Trump hats facing disciplinary action but the Policeman wearing
pink woolly hats at the "March" are not. If this is true it shows level of bullst going at the moment in needs to settle down and judge Trump on his actions as President.

[amusingduck]

Countdown said:

Tbh when you have a Prez who argued that he didint have a small dick, boasting about his intellectual prowess is actually an improvement for him.

LBJ?

[rscott]

johnxjsc1985 said:

anyone hear the story of the Policemen in Trump hats facing disciplinary action but the Policeman wearing
pink woolly hats at the "March" are not. If this is true it shows level of bullst going at the moment in needs to settle down and judge Trump on his actions as President.

Link please?

[scherzkeks]

Halb said:

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?

They showed a pic showing the place wasn't stacked, like it had been with Obama, they always do this at this sort of events, 24 hour news need grist, it would have been an irrelevance and forgotten in a lunch break if it hadn't been taken so strongly by the new admin. Instead it turned into some bizarre Orwellian war.

It has much more to do with the fact that they would like to delegitimize Trump, rather than grist for the 24-hr. cycle.

They have no problem filling air time with talking heads, and news-for-profit has been refined to an art.

This is just another case of deliberate manipulation, with the MLK story being an outright lie. Trivializing it doesn't do us any good.

[chrispmartha]

turbobloke 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.

Likewise anyone who thinks it matters.

Aren't right-on liberal lefties meant to be against populism?

When they're not whining about Trump's victory, of course.

Four, maybe eight, more years of entertainment courtesy of sore losers many not even in the USA...

Massively missing the point.

The crowd is pretty meaningless, the fact that Trump resorted to flat out lying about it is meaningful.

[johnxjsc1985]

rscott said:

Link please?

it was just on Fox News that's why I wondered if anyone else had heard the Story you cant trust anyone these days you know

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

Halb said:

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?

They showed a pic showing the place wasn't stacked, like it had been with Obama, they always do this at this sort of events, 24 hour news need grist, it would have been an irrelevance and forgotten in a lunch break if it hadn't been taken so strongly by the new admin. Instead it turned into some bizarre Orwellian war.

It has much more to do with the fact that they would like to delegitimize Trump, rather than grist for the 24-hr. cycle.

They have no problem filling air time with talking heads, and news-for-profit has been refined to an art.

This is just another case of deliberate manipulation, with the MLK story being an outright lie. Trivializing it doesn't do us any good.

So do you think the MSM lying about the MLK bust is a bigger issue than the press secretary lying about attendance at the rally?

[Countdown]

don4l said:

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.

Losers will take solace wherever they can find it.

I don’t think most people really cared about the size of the crowd. What was interesting was how upset the President got over something so incredibly trivial. You would think that the President of the United States would have more important things to worry about. You would hope that the POTUS wouldn’t behave like a hormonal teenage girl. You would hope that it would be harder to rile the second most powerful man in the World than just a simple tweet suggesting he’s not as popular or as well-liked as his predecessor. Putin and Jinping are probably laughing their socks off that the US has managed to elect a joke as President. He must be one of the few international leaders who makes Kim Jong-Un look good.

People keep saying “let’s judge him on his actions”. So far his actions have been those of a qualified wuckfit.