45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Discussion
KrissKross said:
Have I heard of google, are you 12, why do you try to wind people up like that, unnecessary really if you want to be take seriously.
Ok I just watched the video for the first time:
1. He explain that security/fences were erected at positions that were open in the past. Makes sense to me that maybe not so many people were allowed into the parts where photos were taken. Would that be reasonable in your view?
2. "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said - Well I have never watched a presidential inauguration before on the TV, neither has my family. So maybe the overall audience numbers are higher even if not on site?
So whats your point again, and how is it going to help you and your families day to day lives, shouldn't that be all you really care about instead of all this petty tit for tat rubbish?
Fair enough on the unnecessary rudeness, apologies. It was just all over every media outlet (MSM, Fox and social) so I thought you would have seen it!!Ok I just watched the video for the first time:
1. He explain that security/fences were erected at positions that were open in the past. Makes sense to me that maybe not so many people were allowed into the parts where photos were taken. Would that be reasonable in your view?
2. "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said - Well I have never watched a presidential inauguration before on the TV, neither has my family. So maybe the overall audience numbers are higher even if not on site?
So whats your point again, and how is it going to help you and your families day to day lives, shouldn't that be all you really care about instead of all this petty tit for tat rubbish?
You missed the all important "in person" part of his quote.
And of course hopefully it won't impact my family's life (although any thoughts of emigrating back to the US are now dashed - god knows what he's going to do to the H1B-Visa program).
But what I find so astonishing is that this is a press secretary BLATANTLY lying about an irrelevant fact.
It just doesn't bode well for a well-run, level-headed administration.
And for that the whole world should worry, IMHO!
Honestly, it is a massive red flag to anyone who was desperately hoping Trump would tone it down once in office.
No chance!!!
KrissKross said:
walm said:
Have you heard of google?
It's kind of a big deal.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-...
Have I heard of google, are you 12, why do you try to wind people up like that, unnecessary really if you want to be take seriously.It's kind of a big deal.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-...
Ok I just watched the video for the first time:
1. He explain that security/fences were erected at positions that were open in the past. Makes sense to me that maybe not so many people were allowed into the parts where photos were taken. Would that be reasonable in your view?
2. "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said - Well I have never watched a presidential inauguration before on the TV, neither has my family. So maybe the overall audience numbers are higher even if not on site?
So whats your point again, and how is it going to help you and your families day to day lives, shouldn't that be all you really care about instead of all this petty tit for tat rubbish?
He claimed metro figures showed Trump had the bigger crowd - nope. He wasn't comparing like with like.
As for 2. The full quote is "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe."
The former claim, for largest in person audience isn't true as both Obama's previous events had 1 million + at each.
As for worldwide, maybe. We don't know. We do know 7 million fewer in the US watched Trump than Obama 1 and 10 million fewer watched Trump than Reagan. So it's possible Trump had a bigger worldwide audience, but unlikely .
It's one thing for the media to exaggerate figures or even for a candidate to do so. It's quite another for the official Whitehouse press secretary to give out factually incorrect statements. Or should we allow them to invent GDP stats, unemployment figures etc and not challenge them.
vonuber said:
turbobloke said:
but it's what he does in practice that matters.
Right, so his cutting all federal funding for abortion? You going to answer the question?One of Trumps campaign promises was to cancel the Hyde Amendment which bars using Federal funds to pay for abortion unless the mother is at risk or death or is carrying a foetus as the result of rape or incest.
He also stated he would remove funding from a company called Planned Parenthood. Mainly because investigations from 2015 suggested the company had illegally sold body parts from aborted babies. This defunding is something many Republican senators have also been trying to achieve (20+ of them).
He is pro-life, it was an election campaign promise that he seems to be sticking to so far.
vonuber said:
turbobloke said:
but it's what he does in practice that matters.
Right, so his cutting all federal funding for abortion? You going to answer the question?
kers like you, I've considered it and you're an out of luck gobsworth.don4l said:
How can a degree educated person make 4 grammatical/spelling mistakes in just two sentences?
To be honest given I was 1) using my phone 2) had a screaming 2 month old over my shoulder I'm impressed it was only that. Edited by don4l on Monday 23 January 18:41
How's the whole pretending to be Irish going? Oh and it is two degrees, not one - neither of them being 'in water' as you put it.
turbobloke said:
As nobody asked me the question, and as I always consider any course of action in response to rude fkers like you, I've considered it and you're an out of luck gobsworth.
Insulting the poster? My my, how was the fall off your high horse? No need to point out as you so often do that it's against the site rules etc.kers like you, I've considered it and you're an out of luck gobsworth.Also:
vonuber said:
turbobloke said:
And so the anti-Trump tolerant inclusive left-illiberals will keep on and on and on and...4 or 8 years and counting, tick tock.
By the way has the Brexit vote been reversed as yet?
So what's your answer?
Funkycoldribena said:
rscott said:
This https://usuncut.com/politics/politifact-inaugurati... is worth a read. It debunks most of Spicer's claims, with traceable sources for each debunking. Eg he claimed it was the first time white covers were used - they weren't.
He claimed metro figures showed Trump had the bigger crowd - nope. He wasn't comparing like with like.
As for 2. The full quote is "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe."
The former claim, for largest in person audience isn't true as both Obama's previous events had 1 million + at each.
As for worldwide, maybe. We don't know. We do know 7 million fewer in the US watched Trump than Obama 1 and 10 million fewer watched Trump than Reagan. So it's possible Trump had a bigger worldwide audience, but unlikely .
It's one thing for the media to exaggerate figures or even for a candidate to do so. It's quite another for the official Whitehouse press secretary to give out factually incorrect statements. Or should we allow them to invent GDP stats, unemployment figures etc and not challenge them.
Im so glad I have a life.He claimed metro figures showed Trump had the bigger crowd - nope. He wasn't comparing like with like.
As for 2. The full quote is "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe."
The former claim, for largest in person audience isn't true as both Obama's previous events had 1 million + at each.
As for worldwide, maybe. We don't know. We do know 7 million fewer in the US watched Trump than Obama 1 and 10 million fewer watched Trump than Reagan. So it's possible Trump had a bigger worldwide audience, but unlikely .
It's one thing for the media to exaggerate figures or even for a candidate to do so. It's quite another for the official Whitehouse press secretary to give out factually incorrect statements. Or should we allow them to invent GDP stats, unemployment figures etc and not challenge them.
Also who checked the counterclaims and sources? Any lives left?!
Diligence and due diligence remain useful.
968 said:
turbobloke said:
Also who checked the counterclaims and sources? Any lives left?!
Diligence and due diligence remain useful.
JeremyH5 said:
Regulation to be cut by 75% but maintain key safety points, taxes on middle class and business to be cut by 10%.
Go Donald!
Are you listening, Theresa?
Central and regional public sector cost has been stifling economic performance for decades. Bring it on.
About fking time.
If that is some sort of direct quote from this administration of a policy or aim then I'll get in some popcorn. Cutting regulation by 75%? There must be some terrific redefining of terms to be expected with that. Proving to cut specific taxes might be an awful lot easier.Go Donald!
Are you listening, Theresa?
Central and regional public sector cost has been stifling economic performance for decades. Bring it on.
About f
king time.JeremyH5 said:
Regulation to be cut by 75% but maintain key safety points, taxes on middle class and business to be cut by 10%.
Go Donald!
Are you listening, Theresa?
Central and regional public sector cost has been stifling economic performance for decades. Bring it on.
About fking time.
All well and good but in the immediate future how does America even begin to afford that.Go Donald!
Are you listening, Theresa?
Central and regional public sector cost has been stifling economic performance for decades. Bring it on.
About f
king time.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff