"Crowd-size" important enough for a press-conference

[smilesammich 10,727]

36 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

Senseless....this is all just senseless...then they wonder why we "defend" him(which I don't defend him personally, I don't like seeing senseless attacks against anyone). Maybe if they had better things to do with their time rather than this senseless BS we wouldn't feel so inclined to.

if you're not defending him, what are you defending? 

[OriZ 3,157]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

if you're not defending him, what are you defending? 

 

As I said I'm not defending the person. He was never my favorite person to start with. If it was Clinton in his place I'd say the same things. I base my arguments on what I find to be just and fair and what I think makes sense, not based on which "side" I'm on, which is why I have so many agreements as well as disagreements with both sides here on a wide array of issues. I try to follow the truth and stick to the facts at least what I perceive as such(which of course we may disagree on). At the end of the day the opinions he expressed sincerely(not the outlandish ones) and many of their plans are closer to my pov on many things than the democratic party was this time around and that's the ticket I supported and support, for now. But it has nothing to do with the man in charge, it is despite him.

[bcking 3,157]

48 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Actually that statement is very true , the around the world part. Think about it. 

I'm sorry but the statement starts with the word "Both". In order for the statement to be true, both parts need to be. Yes perhaps the second part is true but he shot himself in the foot by trying to argue both.

[bcking 3,157]

In the grand scheme of things of course Sean Spicer lying about the size of a crowd doesn't matter. To me I'm actually more upset with how he handled things after the fact. You get caught in a lie, you say "sorry we mispoke, the crowd size wasn't the largest ever. However as we have seen with TV ratings it was the largest viewership ever". Something like that. You can TELL THE TRUTH and still add in a positive note.

 

The problem is Trump's persona is that he thinks he is infallible and now his administration is trying to act like that extends to them. People give out false information, yes it was embarrassing but just own up to it.

 

Trying to spin it as "alternate facts" or say that you disagree with the facts just looks childish. Right now it's the size of a crowd, but it shouldn't be a trend because next it could be about something more serious.

 

There is no factual evidence to even suggest that the crowd was the largest ever. Not a single shred. So stating that as the truth was in fact a lie. The bigger problem though is not admitting to it.

[OriZ 3,157]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm sorry but the statement starts with the word "Both". In order for the statement to be true, both parts need to be. Yes perhaps the second part is true but he shot himself in the foot by trying to argue both.

Maybe English isn't my first language, but wouldn't another(admittedly dumb) way to say the two together would be to use the word both? He didn't say either he said both, who knows what that really means. I mean we're all just speculating here and it's silly to begin with.

[smilesammich 10,727]

10 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

As I said I'm not defending the person. He was never my favorite person to start with. If it was Clinton in his place I'd say the same things. I base my arguments on what I find to be just and fair and what I think makes sense, not based on which "side" I'm on, which is why I have so many agreements as well as disagreements with both sides here on a wide array of issues. I try to follow the truth and stick to the facts at least what I perceive as such(which of course we may disagree on). At the end of the day the opinions he expressed sincerely(not the outlandish ones) and many of their plans are closer to my pov on many things than the democratic party was this time around and that's the ticket I supported and support, for now. But it has nothing to do with the man in charge, it is despite him.

still my question, what are you defending if you're not defending trump.

[OriZ 3,157]

Just now, smilesammich said:

still my question, what are you defending if you're not defending trump.

 

Defending against ridiculous attempts to undermine a presidency of an elected president, be it Trump or anybody else if the same circumstances existed.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, OriZ said:

 

Defending against ridiculous attempts to undermine a presidency of an elected president, be it Trump or anybody else if the same circumstances existed.

when trump was going around saying that he was going to have the biggest inauguration ever, that there weren't even enough dresses in dc to outfit everyone properly...he brought the comparisons on himself. the media reporting that the crowd just wasn't all that (and the interviews with dress shops who really had no clue what trump was talking about with a dress shortage) was a reality that anyone viewing could clearly see with their own eyes. that isn't undermining a presidency, that's undermining a president's attempt to alter the truth.

 

file under 'ridiculous attempt to undermine a presidency'

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

19 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Well the press has done it's job. All the great things Trump is doing and we are all talking about something that is totally unimportant. 

 

Like Hillary said what does it really matter 

I good fitting suit on a spokesman is important

[OriZ 3,157]

12 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

when trump was going around saying that he was going to have the biggest inauguration ever, that there weren't even enough dresses in dc to outfit everyone properly...he brought the comparisons on himself. the media reporting that the crowd just wasn't all that (and the interviews with dress shops who really had no clue what trump was talking about with a dress shortage) was a reality that anyone viewing could clearly see with their own eyes. that isn't undermining a presidency, that's undermining a president's attempt to alter the truth.

 

file under 'ridiculous attempt to undermine a presidency'

 

That's just one, most recent example though. But that one is part of many that is the bigger picture I am talking about which is trying to undermine an elected president, and that's a gang up that I refuse to join in on and judge their job before they even get started, no matter what their name is. I mean for crying out loud you had people calling for his impeachment before he was even sworn in. I was the same with Obama too, I gave him a year before I decided he's just not my kind of president, I didn't jump on the republican bandwagon at the time either, and I thought the birther thing was stupid from moment one. That definitely didn't add Trump points in my book. But it did get him alot of political exposure......again....playing the game....

[bcking 3,157]

When Trump and his surrogates overly inflate his "amazingness" with "alternate facts" that are easily proven false by very basic fact checking, he undermines himself.

 

You can't blame other people for what he, and his people, and doing themselves. Spicer didn't need to make that press conference. Yes there were photos on twitter, yes people will having a few laughs about the turn out but what does that matter? He is President. He has more important things to think about. The very first conference from the new Press Secretary shouldn't be just to sooth Trump's ego. He needs to stop acting like a baby whenever people say things about him.

[smilesammich 10,727]

8 minutes ago, OriZ said:

That's just one, most recent example though. But that one is part of many that is the bigger picture I am talking about which is trying to undermine an elected president, and that's a gang up that I refuse to join in on and judge their job before they even get started, no matter what their name is. I mean for crying out loud you had people calling for his impeachment before he was even sworn in. I was the same with Obama too, I gave him a year before I decided he's just not my kind of president, I didn't jump on the republican bandwagon at the time either, and I thought the birther thing was stupid from moment one. That definitely didn't add Trump points in my book. But it did get him alot of political exposure......again....playing the game....

yes, impeachment because of his conflicts of interest that existed before he was sworn in - and he's yet to properly amend as president.

[yuna628 9,689]

4 hours ago, smilesammich said:

and what exactly is the difference between "sometimes we disagree with facts" and "sometimes we can disagree with the facts"? lol, same statement. this is going to be a good time. how is disagreeing with fact reasonable? do you need a conway assist on the definition of 'fact'?

No difference. A slight change in grammar structure but really nothing much else helpful to fix or correct the statement. But you know that and I know that.

4 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

In the context that it was said it was perfectly reasonable. People have differing opinions sometimes on what the facts are. Misquoting and taking out of context is not reasonable.

Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions. Once something is a fact, a difference in opinion does not change the fact. Facts are truth. If one person believes truth and the other refuses to believe truth that does not make the truth any less valid or true. ''Alternative facts'' are spin propaganda lies. It's users would like you to believe they run in tandem to truth. To the contrary the truth of facts never stops, bends, or gives way to such distortions. It is people with opinions which may or may not be based on their own stupidity, ill-education, laziness, and desperation that may cling to lies such as these as a method to feel that they are validated. Those that peddle them however, are using such psychological tactics in order to pacify people into not bothering to question, learn, think, or accept truth. To offer an alternative fact, acts on the premise that something was faulty with the truth to begin with. The truth is rarely ever comfortable to believe for all parties involved, so offering up an pacifying alternative provides some soothing lotion to a festering wound. Unfortunately though the lotion is poison. All the great dystopian writers of the ages conceived of this concept well before Trump ever popped out. They had seen what 'alternative facts' had done to the world and knew where we were headed and sought to warn us.

 

3 hours ago, bcking said:

Apologies for the misquote. I left out the word "can", my bad.

 

He is the press secretary. He is supposed to be explaining to us what the President means/intends to do. We shouldn't need a Press Secretary for the Press Secretary explaining what the Press Secretary "meant to say". I'm sick and tired of Trump's entire team constantly "meaning to say" one thing but actually saying something else. They need to get out of this business if they can't form proper sentences to get across what they "mean to say".

 

The context of the discussion was VERY clear. He was talking about his "Press Conference" on Saturday where he told a lie (Inauguration was biggest ever. He even ended the sentence with "Period" so we knew he was serious). It was a clear, obvious lie. It was an "alternate fact" (IE: Lie). In that scenario he "disagreed with the facts" and by that I mean he was wrong.

 

Sorry that context just seems very obvious to me.

 

EDIT: Just to be clear so you don't think I'm intentionally misquoting. He said:

 

"That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period. Both in person and around the globe."

 

^^

"Alternate fact" (Lie)

Saying in person was the first lie. Around the globe of course we can all read between the lines and figure out what's being implied here. Though I would question such a position actually without thinking about it in context of also the previous administration in the 'digital' and 'tv' age. We know that Obama's crowd size was physically larger, but his message and the historical context of his election also had a great deal of sway with those who would probably want to tune in using other methods of viewing. I certainly would not dispute though that people would also want to tune in to watch Trump -- probably around speech time and nothing else, simply to see what idiotic things he would say. Therein possibly lays another psychological alternative fact tactic - to imply that people would want to watch his inauguration with a genuine happy interest. The third lie is of course to imply that having the biggest somehow makes you the best. That's an old charlatan prosperity gospel hoodwink he loves so much.

2 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

 

Ahhh...ok. Good to know. Well, here's the deal: at the end of the day an opinion is just that, an opinion. Your opinion is that mine are alternate facts, I think the opposite. Who's to say who is right and who is wrong? Let me guess, you're right and I'm wrong. Ok but again I say the opposite. We can continue this for eternity. It'll nevertheless be just as useless as everything else some are trying to do these days by needlessly nitpicking on stupid things.

Who is to say who is right and wrong? The truth. It's right before your eyes if you want to give it a look.

Edited January 24, 2017 by yuna628

[ready4ONE 5,400]

29 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

Defending against ridiculous attempts to undermine a presidency of an elected president, be it Trump or anybody else if the same circumstances existed.

Yes, I remember the salad days where everyone, I mean everyone worked so diligently to support Barack Obama. Nobody ever called him Dumbo, compared him to a monkey (or his wife,) no one spent 8solid years calling him Muslim, Muslim sympathizer, Kenyan and not really born in Hawaii, criticized his every word, action, or lack thereof.

 

Seriously, the hypocracy of trying to bend an out and out, bald face, pants on fire, crazy pants assertion that Trump drew a record crowd as somehow unpatriotic less than four days after two terms of Obama leaving office is truly sad. Trump was a proud birther through this very summer.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

1 hour ago, ready4ONE said:

Yes, I remember the salad days where everyone, I mean everyone worked so diligently to support Barack Obama. Nobody ever called him Dumbo, compared him to a monkey (or his wife,) no one spent 8solid years calling him Muslim, Muslim sympathizer, Kenyan and not really born in Hawaii, criticized his every word, action, or lack thereof.

 

Seriously, the hypocracy of trying to bend an out and out, bald face, pants on fire, crazy pants assertion that Trump drew a record crowd as somehow unpatriotic less than four days after two terms of Obama leaving office is truly sad. Trump was a proud birther through this very summer.

Yes I agree.  I cannot count the amount of times I heard Barack Hussein Obama.  He is now to only be referred to as Donald John Trump.