Kellyanne Conway Owns NBC Chuck Todd

[Oldstyle]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Conway's point...which seems to have gone right over your head, Winger..is that the Trump Administration will no longer allow liberals in the main stream media like Chuck Todd to determine what the "facts" are...nor will they allow people like Todd to set the "narrative" for what is happening in the country without pushing back if they feel it hasn't been reported on fairly. Conway's point was that MSNBC's decision to push the story of "crowd size" when there was so much more important things taking place is ridiculous and that if they persist in conducting themselves in that manner then the Trump Administration will ignore them and take their case right to the American people.

The ball is now squarely in Chuck Todd's court. He's been challenged to be a "journalist". This "game" has only just begun!

 

[Faun]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Conway's point...which seems to have gone right over your head, Winger..is that the Trump Administration will no longer allow liberals in the main stream media like Chuck Todd to determine what the "facts" are...nor will they allow people like Todd to set the "narrative" for what is happening in the country without pushing back if they feel it hasn't been reported on fairly. Conway's point was that MSNBC's decision to push the story of "crowd size" when there was so much more important things taking place is ridiculous and that if they persist in conducting themselves in that manner then the Trump Administration will ignore them and take their case right to the American people.

The ball is now squarely in Chuck Todd's court. He's been challenged to be a "journalist". This "game" has only just begun!

LOLOL

Nah, all KellyAnne Conway accomplished was to add the term, "alternative facts," into the lexicon of this administration because it sounds so much more PC than, "lying."

 

[rightwinger]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Conway's point...which seems to have gone right over your head, Winger..is that the Trump Administration will no longer allow liberals in the main stream media like Chuck Todd to determine what the "facts" are...nor will they allow people like Todd to set the "narrative" for what is happening in the country without pushing back if they feel it hasn't been reported on fairly. Conway's point was that MSNBC's decision to push the story of "crowd size" when there was so much more important things taking place is ridiculous and that if they persist in conducting themselves in that manner then the Trump Administration will ignore them and take their case right to the American people.

The ball is now squarely in Chuck Todd's court. He's been challenged to be a "journalist". This "game" has only just begun!

Game, set, match

The Trump administration has proclaimed that they are not beholden to facts and are free to project any "alternative facts' that support their cause

Alternative facts= Not facts

 

[Oldstyle]

Kelly Anne Conway has been taking liberals in the media to school for much of the past year, Faun! Laugh if you want but she handles people like Chuck Todd in exactly the way that they should be handled...calmly pointing out that there is another side of the story that isn't being reported and asking why that is. That's a question that resonates with the vast majority of the American people who don't think they can trust media...and with good reason.

This Administration will not play the "game" according to rules that Chuck Todd establishes! They've thrown down the gauntlet on day one that they will not be bullied by the liberal media but will in fact fight back against them. Chuck Todd has his "facts" and if the Trump Administration disagrees with what's been reported then they have every right to provide the American people with an alternative view.

Game on...

 

[Faun]

Kelly Anne Conway has been taking liberals in the media to school for much of the past year, Faun! Laugh if you want but she handles people like Chuck Todd in exactly the way that they should be handled...calmly pointing out that there is another side of the story that isn't being reported and asking why that is. That's a question that resonates with the vast majority of the American people who don't think they can trust media...and with good reason.

This Administration will not play the "game" according to rules that Chuck Todd establishes! They've thrown down the gauntlet on day one that they will not be bullied by the liberal media but will in fact fight back against them. Chuck Todd has his "facts" and if the Trump Administration disagrees with what's been reported then they have every right to provide the American people with an alternative view.

Game on...

LOLOL

And by "gauntlet," you mean they will continue lying through their teeth and call their lies, "alternative facts."

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no irony here. You have no idea what I think about Trump's '*****' comment and your pathetic segue into a red herring won't save your ego. You lost the debate. Suck it up.

The only one lost is you. Spicer lied, and today he told everyone that he didn't really say what he said, and you have bought the spin.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Just curious, Czernobog...are you far left shills going to spend the entire four years Trump is President obsessing about things like "crowd size"?

Only when he chooses to lie about it publicly. I intend to spend the next four years obsessing about every single perceived dishonest utterance from this administration. After all, isn't that what you guys did the last 8 years with Obama?

Here's a novel concept...how about you worry about the success or failure of Trump's agenda and leave this nonsense to idiots like Chuck Todd?

Here's a concept. How about you hold your guy to the same standards you held Obama to for the last eight years.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'm fine with that, Czernobog! The standard I held Barack Obama to was judging him on what he actually DID and not on what he SAID he would do! I'm more than happy to judge Donald Trump in exactly the same manner. Are you?

LOLOLOLOL

You blamed him for everything bad that happened and credited him for nothing good that happened.

That was your standard for judging Obama. We'll see if you do the same for Trump. Vegas odds are against you.

So you approve of Trump helping unions. Got it.

The second Conway used "alternate facts" was the second the MSM started talking about refusing to interview her anymore.

 

[Camp]

Baghdad Betty has branded herself and the trump administration as liars and con artist extraordinaire and that brand will not go away. They are stuck with it. Only the most extreme trumpidors are still defending them.

 

[kwc57]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Alternative facts are not falsehoods as Chuck arrogantly proclaimed. Alternative facts are the facts in a matter where one side has cherry picked their facts and ignored the rest of the facts. The other side pointing out the alternative facts you ignored does not make them falsehoods. It is bringing to light the facts you refuse to acknowledge. Chuck can laugh all he wants, but if you watch him for any length of time, he is very agenda driven and only includes that which supports his narrative. But you already knew that and defend it because you have the same narrative......or you're just stupid enough to swallow what the media tells you as honest and objective. Long story short, this administration is pulling back the curtains and exposing the media to the sunlight of accountability. Given their dismal ratings and the fact that they won't self evaluate and learn from it, then this is the next best way to get them back to a point of responsible journalism.

 

[Camp]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Alternative facts are not falsehoods as Chuck arrogantly proclaimed. Alternative facts are the facts in a matter where one side has cherry picked their facts and ignored the rest of the facts. The other side pointing out the alternative facts you ignored does not make them falsehoods. It is bringing to light the facts you refuse to acknowledge. Chuck can laugh all he wants, but if you watch him for any length of time, he is very agenda driven and only includes that which supports his narrative. But you already knew that and defend it because you have the same narrative......or you're just stupid enough to swallow what the media tells you as honest and objective. Long story short, this administration is pulling back the curtains and exposing the media to the sunlight of accountability. Given their dismal ratings and the fact that they won't self evaluate and learn from it, then this is the next best way to get them back to a point of responsible journalism.

The problem with your thesis is that it relies on there being some omitted facts. Trump nor his spokespeople have not provided any actual examples of facts. Subjective speculations and opinions are not facts,, but are being presented as facts. Being not able to present definable and provable facts, Conway needed a way to describe the speculations and opinions as facts, hence the made up term, alternate facts, of which there is no such thing.

 

[Czernobog]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Conway's point...which seems to have gone right over your head, Winger..is that the Trump Administration will no longer allow liberals in the main stream media like Chuck Todd to determine what the "facts" are...nor will they allow people like Todd to set the "narrative" for what is happening in the country without pushing back if they feel it hasn't been reported on fairly. Conway's point was that MSNBC's decision to push the story of "crowd size" when there was so much more important things taking place is ridiculous and that if they persist in conducting themselves in that manner then the Trump Administration will ignore them and take their case right to the American people.

The ball is now squarely in Chuck Todd's court. He's been challenged to be a "journalist". This "game" has only just begun!

Except the media doesn't, and hasn't been , "determining" what facts are. Facts are facts. Period. Full stop. There is no such thing as an "alternative fact". That's just a catchy way of labelling a lie. Even your explanation is an exercise in alternative facts. Sean Spicer came into the Press Room, and announced, without being asked a question by the press, that the crowds at Trump's inauguration were "...“the total largest audience witnessed in person and around the globe,” (emphasis is mine). For those who are not familiar with English, and grammar, "and" means as well as, also. In other words those were two different components that Spicer was claimer were the largest ever. There have been those who have suggested that he was talking about those to things combined. Except that wouldn't have been "...in person and around the world..."; that would have been "in person with around the world viewing...". In order for and to be accurate, and true, both components would need to be true. Now, the latter (around the world) may well have been true (I don't know, I have never really looked at the global viewer numbers for Obama's 2008 inauguration), although I do question the claim. However, by trying to also claim that this was true of the in person audience, that made his claim untrue, or, as Republicans, and Conservatives now, apparently call it, "an alternative fact".

Trying to claim anything else about Spicer's statement is simply trying to suggest that Spicer didn't say what he actually said. Directly to your point, since he offered that "alternative fact" without any question, or prompting, that rather means that Spicer, not MSNBC decided to make the crowd size an issue. If Spicer, Trump, or any of the rest of Trump's administration didn't want it to be an issue, then maybe Trump shouldn't have sent Spicer into the Press Room to tell a lie for his very first presence in the Press Room

 

[Czernobog]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Alternative facts are not falsehoods as Chuck arrogantly proclaimed. Alternative facts are the facts in a matter where one side has cherry picked their facts and ignored the rest of the facts. The other side pointing out the alternative facts you ignored does not make them falsehoods. It is bringing to light the facts you refuse to acknowledge. Chuck can laugh all he wants, but if you watch him for any length of time, he is very agenda driven and only includes that which supports his narrative. But you already knew that and defend it because you have the same narrative......or you're just stupid enough to swallow what the media tells you as honest and objective. Long story short, this administration is pulling back the curtains and exposing the media to the sunlight of accountability. Given their dismal ratings and the fact that they won't self evaluate and learn from it, then this is the next best way to get them back to a point of responsible journalism.

Bullshit. Spicer claimed the in person crowds was the largest ever. That is simply not true. By the way, even if you want to include global, and world-wide, I don't think it was true. Viewership for the 2008 Obama inauguration was 37.8 million by itself. Then add an additional 11 million in Germany, 7 million in France, and just over 5 million in the UK (and those are just the largest European numbers), and you are already at 60.8 million viewers, and that doesn't even take into consideration the rest of Europe, Asia, or Africa, not to mention the 21 million video streams, or the 136 million page views reported by CNN on inauguration day in 2008. So, yeah, even if you want to include "not actually there" viewing, I would dispute Spicer's "largest audience ever" claim.

So, yeah, there were no "Alternative facts" to ignore. Spicer made a claim that was simply not true, and Kellyanne called Spicer's untrue claims "alternative facts" just compounding the problem for the Trump campaign.

 

[Oldstyle]

Baghdad Betty has branded herself and the trump administration as liars and con artist extraordinaire and that brand will not go away. They are stuck with it. Only the most extreme trumpidors are still defending them.

That's ridiculous, Camp! Disputing the number of people who attended an event doesn't make you a con artist nor a liar...it simply means you don't agree with the propaganda that news outlets like CNN and MSNBC is putting out and that you're more than willing to put forth your own take on things! I'm sorry if conservatives fighting back against the likes of Chuck Todd "offends" you but you better get used to it because I don't think it's going to change while Trump is in office.

 

[Oldstyle]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Conway's point...which seems to have gone right over your head, Winger..is that the Trump Administration will no longer allow liberals in the main stream media like Chuck Todd to determine what the "facts" are...nor will they allow people like Todd to set the "narrative" for what is happening in the country without pushing back if they feel it hasn't been reported on fairly. Conway's point was that MSNBC's decision to push the story of "crowd size" when there was so much more important things taking place is ridiculous and that if they persist in conducting themselves in that manner then the Trump Administration will ignore them and take their case right to the American people.

The ball is now squarely in Chuck Todd's court. He's been challenged to be a "journalist". This "game" has only just begun!

Except the media doesn't, and hasn't been , "determining" what facts are. Facts are facts. Period. Full stop. There is no such thing as an "alternative fact". That's just a catchy way of labelling a lie. Even your explanation is an exercise in alternative facts. Sean Spicer came into the Press Room, and announced, without being asked a question by the press, that the crowds at Trump's inauguration were "...“the total largest audience witnessed in person and around the globe,” (emphasis is mine). For those who are not familiar with English, and grammar, "and" means as well as, also. In other words those were two different components that Spicer was claimer were the largest ever. There have been those who have suggested that he was talking about those to things combined. Except that wouldn't have been "...in person and around the world..."; that would have been "in person with around the world viewing...". In order for and to be accurate, and true, both components would need to be true. Now, the latter (around the world) may well have been true (I don't know, I have never really looked at the global viewer numbers for Obama's 2008 inauguration), although I do question the claim. However, by trying to also claim that this was true of the in person audience, that made his claim untrue, or, as Republicans, and Conservatives now, apparently call it, "an alternative fact".

Trying to claim anything else about Spicer's statement is simply trying to suggest that Spicer didn't say what he actually said. Directly to your point, since he offered that "alternative fact" without any question, or prompting, that rather means that Spicer, not MSNBC decided to make the crowd size an issue. If Spicer, Trump, or any of the rest of Trump's administration didn't want it to be an issue, then maybe Trump shouldn't have sent Spicer into the Press Room to tell a lie for his very first presence in the Press Room

Facts are facts? Really? Who determines what is fact and what isn't? The fact police? Was it a "fact" that the Martin Luther King Jr. bust was removed from the Oval Office by Donald Trump? That "fact" was reported by someone in the liberal media in an attempt (I assume) to paint Trump as a racist who hates blacks. So is the Trump Administration wrong in rebutting that "fact"?

I noted that you ignored the second part of my assertion...that the liberal media has been setting the "narrative" for the Trump Administration even before he was sworn in! What's laughable is that Spicer spoke for nearly an hour and a half on a myriad of topics and yet all that was reported by "news" outlets like CNN and MSNBC is his comments on the crowd size on the National Mall! Which of course makes Kelly Anne Conway's comment to Chuck Todd spot on when she asked him why as a journalist was he not covering more important issues that the Trump Administration is dealing with? A question to which Todd's stuttering response was to simply keep repeating his question about crowd size.

 

[bodecea]

TKO

Complete interview beat down

-Geaux
-------------------------

 

[Czernobog]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Conway's point...which seems to have gone right over your head, Winger..is that the Trump Administration will no longer allow liberals in the main stream media like Chuck Todd to determine what the "facts" are...nor will they allow people like Todd to set the "narrative" for what is happening in the country without pushing back if they feel it hasn't been reported on fairly. Conway's point was that MSNBC's decision to push the story of "crowd size" when there was so much more important things taking place is ridiculous and that if they persist in conducting themselves in that manner then the Trump Administration will ignore them and take their case right to the American people.

The ball is now squarely in Chuck Todd's court. He's been challenged to be a "journalist". This "game" has only just begun!

Except the media doesn't, and hasn't been , "determining" what facts are. Facts are facts. Period. Full stop. There is no such thing as an "alternative fact". That's just a catchy way of labelling a lie. Even your explanation is an exercise in alternative facts. Sean Spicer came into the Press Room, and announced, without being asked a question by the press, that the crowds at Trump's inauguration were "...“the total largest audience witnessed in person and around the globe,” (emphasis is mine). For those who are not familiar with English, and grammar, "and" means as well as, also. In other words those were two different components that Spicer was claimer were the largest ever. There have been those who have suggested that he was talking about those to things combined. Except that wouldn't have been "...in person and around the world..."; that would have been "in person with around the world viewing...". In order for and to be accurate, and true, both components would need to be true. Now, the latter (around the world) may well have been true (I don't know, I have never really looked at the global viewer numbers for Obama's 2008 inauguration), although I do question the claim. However, by trying to also claim that this was true of the in person audience, that made his claim untrue, or, as Republicans, and Conservatives now, apparently call it, "an alternative fact".

Trying to claim anything else about Spicer's statement is simply trying to suggest that Spicer didn't say what he actually said. Directly to your point, since he offered that "alternative fact" without any question, or prompting, that rather means that Spicer, not MSNBC decided to make the crowd size an issue. If Spicer, Trump, or any of the rest of Trump's administration didn't want it to be an issue, then maybe Trump shouldn't have sent Spicer into the Press Room to tell a lie for his very first presence in the Press Room

Facts are facts? Really? Who determines what is fact and what isn't? The fact police? Was it a "fact" that the Martin Luther King Jr. bust was removed from the Oval Office by Donald Trump? That "fact" was reported by someone in the liberal media in an attempt (I assume) to paint Trump as a racist who hates blacks. So is the Trump Administration wrong in rebutting that "fact"?

you get that's not even sophomoric, but is grade school immaturity, right?!?! "Well, he said something that wasn't true, so I get to, too!!!" Really?!?! That is honestly the level of your ethical reasoning?!?! That is honestly the level of the ethical reasoning of the Trump Administration?!?! Because, believe me, if it is, then Spicer being...let us be polite, and say, less than honest...during his first Press Room Briefing is going to be the least of our problems over the next four years.

I noted that you ignored the second part of my assertion...that the liberal media has been setting the "narrative" for the Trump Administration even before he was sworn in! What's laughable is that Spicer spoke for nearly an hour and a half on a myriad of topics and yet all that was reported by "news" outlets like CNN and MSNBC is his comments on the crowd size on the National Mall! Which of course makes Kelly Anne Conway's comment to Chuck Todd spot on when she asked him why as a journalist was he not covering more important issues that the Trump Administration is dealing with? A question to which Todd's stuttering response was to simply keep repeating his question about crowd size.

I ignored it, because you want to do the same thing that the Trump administration seems to be doing - equating "narrative" with "fact". They are not the same thing. I have no problem with the Trump administration trying to fashion their administration's narrative as they wish. I have a problem with them trying to do so with demonstrably untrue "alternative facts". We cannot even begin to address the issue of forming a narrative, until we can come to an understanding of what a "fact" is, which has, apparently, become a rather fluid concept in the minds of modern Conservatives.

 

[Oldstyle]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Conway's point...which seems to have gone right over your head, Winger..is that the Trump Administration will no longer allow liberals in the main stream media like Chuck Todd to determine what the "facts" are...nor will they allow people like Todd to set the "narrative" for what is happening in the country without pushing back if they feel it hasn't been reported on fairly. Conway's point was that MSNBC's decision to push the story of "crowd size" when there was so much more important things taking place is ridiculous and that if they persist in conducting themselves in that manner then the Trump Administration will ignore them and take their case right to the American people.

The ball is now squarely in Chuck Todd's court. He's been challenged to be a "journalist". This "game" has only just begun!

Except the media doesn't, and hasn't been , "determining" what facts are. Facts are facts. Period. Full stop. There is no such thing as an "alternative fact". That's just a catchy way of labelling a lie. Even your explanation is an exercise in alternative facts. Sean Spicer came into the Press Room, and announced, without being asked a question by the press, that the crowds at Trump's inauguration were "...“the total largest audience witnessed in person and around the globe,” (emphasis is mine). For those who are not familiar with English, and grammar, "and" means as well as, also. In other words those were two different components that Spicer was claimer were the largest ever. There have been those who have suggested that he was talking about those to things combined. Except that wouldn't have been "...in person and around the world..."; that would have been "in person with around the world viewing...". In order for and to be accurate, and true, both components would need to be true. Now, the latter (around the world) may well have been true (I don't know, I have never really looked at the global viewer numbers for Obama's 2008 inauguration), although I do question the claim. However, by trying to also claim that this was true of the in person audience, that made his claim untrue, or, as Republicans, and Conservatives now, apparently call it, "an alternative fact".

Trying to claim anything else about Spicer's statement is simply trying to suggest that Spicer didn't say what he actually said. Directly to your point, since he offered that "alternative fact" without any question, or prompting, that rather means that Spicer, not MSNBC decided to make the crowd size an issue. If Spicer, Trump, or any of the rest of Trump's administration didn't want it to be an issue, then maybe Trump shouldn't have sent Spicer into the Press Room to tell a lie for his very first presence in the Press Room

Facts are facts? Really? Who determines what is fact and what isn't? The fact police? Was it a "fact" that the Martin Luther King Jr. bust was removed from the Oval Office by Donald Trump? That "fact" was reported by someone in the liberal media in an attempt (I assume) to paint Trump as a racist who hates blacks. So is the Trump Administration wrong in rebutting that "fact"?

you get that's not even sophomoric, but is grade school immaturity, right?!?! "Well, he said something that wasn't true, so I get to, too!!!" Really?!?! That is honestly the level of your ethical reasoning?!?! That is honestly the level of the ethical reasoning of the Trump Administration?!?! Because, believe me, if it is, then Spicer being...let us be polite, and say, less than honest...during his first Press Room Briefing is going to be the least of our problems over the next four years.

I noted that you ignored the second part of my assertion...that the liberal media has been setting the "narrative" for the Trump Administration even before he was sworn in! What's laughable is that Spicer spoke for nearly an hour and a half on a myriad of topics and yet all that was reported by "news" outlets like CNN and MSNBC is his comments on the crowd size on the National Mall! Which of course makes Kelly Anne Conway's comment to Chuck Todd spot on when she asked him why as a journalist was he not covering more important issues that the Trump Administration is dealing with? A question to which Todd's stuttering response was to simply keep repeating his question about crowd size.

I ignored it, because you want to do the same thing that the Trump administration seems to be doing - equating "narrative" with "fact". They are not the same thing. I have no problem with the Trump administration trying to fashion their administration's narrative as they wish. I have a problem with them trying to do so with demonstrably untrue "alternative facts". We cannot even begin to address the issue of forming a narrative, until we can come to an understanding of what a "fact" is, which has, apparently, become a rather fluid concept in the minds of modern Conservatives.

Once again...you failed to answer my question. Who determines what is "fact"? Chuck Todd? You've reached a conclusion that it should be the main stream media that gets to decide what is fact and what isn't...but they've demonstrated such an obvious bias in the past that it begs the question...why would anyone trust THEM to be fair?

Kelly Anne Conway made an excellent point when she asked why Chuck Todd wasn't covering substantive news instead of obsessing about crowd size. Todd's "answer" to that was to ask his original question ONCE AGAIN! The truth of the matter is that for many in the liberal media...they begin with the "narrative" and then seek out the "facts" that support that narrative while they ignore what doesn't support the narrative!

 

[Czernobog]

Chuck Todd got Conway to proclaim "alternative facts"

Game, Set, Match

Conway's point...which seems to have gone right over your head, Winger..is that the Trump Administration will no longer allow liberals in the main stream media like Chuck Todd to determine what the "facts" are...nor will they allow people like Todd to set the "narrative" for what is happening in the country without pushing back if they feel it hasn't been reported on fairly. Conway's point was that MSNBC's decision to push the story of "crowd size" when there was so much more important things taking place is ridiculous and that if they persist in conducting themselves in that manner then the Trump Administration will ignore them and take their case right to the American people.

The ball is now squarely in Chuck Todd's court. He's been challenged to be a "journalist". This "game" has only just begun!

Except the media doesn't, and hasn't been , "determining" what facts are. Facts are facts. Period. Full stop. There is no such thing as an "alternative fact". That's just a catchy way of labelling a lie. Even your explanation is an exercise in alternative facts. Sean Spicer came into the Press Room, and announced, without being asked a question by the press, that the crowds at Trump's inauguration were "...“the total largest audience witnessed in person and around the globe,” (emphasis is mine). For those who are not familiar with English, and grammar, "and" means as well as, also. In other words those were two different components that Spicer was claimer were the largest ever. There have been those who have suggested that he was talking about those to things combined. Except that wouldn't have been "...in person and around the world..."; that would have been "in person with around the world viewing...". In order for and to be accurate, and true, both components would need to be true. Now, the latter (around the world) may well have been true (I don't know, I have never really looked at the global viewer numbers for Obama's 2008 inauguration), although I do question the claim. However, by trying to also claim that this was true of the in person audience, that made his claim untrue, or, as Republicans, and Conservatives now, apparently call it, "an alternative fact".

Trying to claim anything else about Spicer's statement is simply trying to suggest that Spicer didn't say what he actually said. Directly to your point, since he offered that "alternative fact" without any question, or prompting, that rather means that Spicer, not MSNBC decided to make the crowd size an issue. If Spicer, Trump, or any of the rest of Trump's administration didn't want it to be an issue, then maybe Trump shouldn't have sent Spicer into the Press Room to tell a lie for his very first presence in the Press Room

Facts are facts? Really? Who determines what is fact and what isn't? The fact police? Was it a "fact" that the Martin Luther King Jr. bust was removed from the Oval Office by Donald Trump? That "fact" was reported by someone in the liberal media in an attempt (I assume) to paint Trump as a racist who hates blacks. So is the Trump Administration wrong in rebutting that "fact"?

you get that's not even sophomoric, but is grade school immaturity, right?!?! "Well, he said something that wasn't true, so I get to, too!!!" Really?!?! That is honestly the level of your ethical reasoning?!?! That is honestly the level of the ethical reasoning of the Trump Administration?!?! Because, believe me, if it is, then Spicer being...let us be polite, and say, less than honest...during his first Press Room Briefing is going to be the least of our problems over the next four years.

I noted that you ignored the second part of my assertion...that the liberal media has been setting the "narrative" for the Trump Administration even before he was sworn in! What's laughable is that Spicer spoke for nearly an hour and a half on a myriad of topics and yet all that was reported by "news" outlets like CNN and MSNBC is his comments on the crowd size on the National Mall! Which of course makes Kelly Anne Conway's comment to Chuck Todd spot on when she asked him why as a journalist was he not covering more important issues that the Trump Administration is dealing with? A question to which Todd's stuttering response was to simply keep repeating his question about crowd size.

I ignored it, because you want to do the same thing that the Trump administration seems to be doing - equating "narrative" with "fact". They are not the same thing. I have no problem with the Trump administration trying to fashion their administration's narrative as they wish. I have a problem with them trying to do so with demonstrably untrue "alternative facts". We cannot even begin to address the issue of forming a narrative, until we can come to an understanding of what a "fact" is, which has, apparently, become a rather fluid concept in the minds of modern Conservatives.

Once again...you failed to answer my question. Who determines what is "fact"? Chuck Todd? You've reached a conclusion that it should be the main stream media that gets to decide what is fact and what isn't...but they've demonstrated such an obvious bias in the past that it begs the question...why would anyone trust THEM to be fair?

Sorry. Holding someone to be accountable for what they say, and do, is not being "biased". As to your question, facts determine themselves. When someone says that the audience at the Trump inauguration was record, either it is a fact, as demonstrated by the verifiable numbers, or it isn't. MSNBC does not get to determine that, and neither does the Trump administration. The numbers are what they are. MSNBC reporting that the numbers do not support Spicer's claim is not "determining" what the facts are; it is simply reporting what the facts are, and reporting that Spicer's claim was not supported by those facts.

Kelly Anne Conway made an excellent point when she asked why Chuck Todd wasn't covering substantive news instead of obsessing about crowd size. Todd's "answer" to that was to ask his original question ONCE AGAIN! The truth of the matter is that for many in the liberal media...they begin with the "narrative" and then seek out the "facts" that support that narrative while they ignore what doesn't support the narrative!

No, she didn't make an excellent point, because MSNBC did not make crowd size an issue. They made Spicer lying about something as trivial as crowd size an issue - which it is. If Trump did not want the press talking about something as trivial as crowd size, then he shouldn't have sent his press secretary to the press to tell an unprovoked lie about crowd size. It's just. That. Simple.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Oldstyle]

Conway's point...which seems to have gone right over your head, Winger..is that the Trump Administration will no longer allow liberals in the main stream media like Chuck Todd to determine what the "facts" are...nor will they allow people like Todd to set the "narrative" for what is happening in the country without pushing back if they feel it hasn't been reported on fairly. Conway's point was that MSNBC's decision to push the story of "crowd size" when there was so much more important things taking place is ridiculous and that if they persist in conducting themselves in that manner then the Trump Administration will ignore them and take their case right to the American people.

The ball is now squarely in Chuck Todd's court. He's been challenged to be a "journalist". This "game" has only just begun!

Except the media doesn't, and hasn't been , "determining" what facts are. Facts are facts. Period. Full stop. There is no such thing as an "alternative fact". That's just a catchy way of labelling a lie. Even your explanation is an exercise in alternative facts. Sean Spicer came into the Press Room, and announced, without being asked a question by the press, that the crowds at Trump's inauguration were "...“the total largest audience witnessed in person and around the globe,” (emphasis is mine). For those who are not familiar with English, and grammar, "and" means as well as, also. In other words those were two different components that Spicer was claimer were the largest ever. There have been those who have suggested that he was talking about those to things combined. Except that wouldn't have been "...in person and around the world..."; that would have been "in person with around the world viewing...". In order for and to be accurate, and true, both components would need to be true. Now, the latter (around the world) may well have been true (I don't know, I have never really looked at the global viewer numbers for Obama's 2008 inauguration), although I do question the claim. However, by trying to also claim that this was true of the in person audience, that made his claim untrue, or, as Republicans, and Conservatives now, apparently call it, "an alternative fact".

Trying to claim anything else about Spicer's statement is simply trying to suggest that Spicer didn't say what he actually said. Directly to your point, since he offered that "alternative fact" without any question, or prompting, that rather means that Spicer, not MSNBC decided to make the crowd size an issue. If Spicer, Trump, or any of the rest of Trump's administration didn't want it to be an issue, then maybe Trump shouldn't have sent Spicer into the Press Room to tell a lie for his very first presence in the Press Room

Facts are facts? Really? Who determines what is fact and what isn't? The fact police? Was it a "fact" that the Martin Luther King Jr. bust was removed from the Oval Office by Donald Trump? That "fact" was reported by someone in the liberal media in an attempt (I assume) to paint Trump as a racist who hates blacks. So is the Trump Administration wrong in rebutting that "fact"?

you get that's not even sophomoric, but is grade school immaturity, right?!?! "Well, he said something that wasn't true, so I get to, too!!!" Really?!?! That is honestly the level of your ethical reasoning?!?! That is honestly the level of the ethical reasoning of the Trump Administration?!?! Because, believe me, if it is, then Spicer being...let us be polite, and say, less than honest...during his first Press Room Briefing is going to be the least of our problems over the next four years.

I noted that you ignored the second part of my assertion...that the liberal media has been setting the "narrative" for the Trump Administration even before he was sworn in! What's laughable is that Spicer spoke for nearly an hour and a half on a myriad of topics and yet all that was reported by "news" outlets like CNN and MSNBC is his comments on the crowd size on the National Mall! Which of course makes Kelly Anne Conway's comment to Chuck Todd spot on when she asked him why as a journalist was he not covering more important issues that the Trump Administration is dealing with? A question to which Todd's stuttering response was to simply keep repeating his question about crowd size.

I ignored it, because you want to do the same thing that the Trump administration seems to be doing - equating "narrative" with "fact". They are not the same thing. I have no problem with the Trump administration trying to fashion their administration's narrative as they wish. I have a problem with them trying to do so with demonstrably untrue "alternative facts". We cannot even begin to address the issue of forming a narrative, until we can come to an understanding of what a "fact" is, which has, apparently, become a rather fluid concept in the minds of modern Conservatives.

Once again...you failed to answer my question. Who determines what is "fact"? Chuck Todd? You've reached a conclusion that it should be the main stream media that gets to decide what is fact and what isn't...but they've demonstrated such an obvious bias in the past that it begs the question...why would anyone trust THEM to be fair?

Sorry. Holding someone to be accountable for what they say, and do, is not being "biased". As to your question, facts determine themselves. When someone says that the audience at the Trump inauguration was record, either it is a fact, as demonstrated by the verifiable numbers, or it isn't. MSNBC does not get to determine that, and neither does the Trump administration. The numbers are what they are. MSNBC reporting that the numbers do not support Spicer's claim is not "determining" what the facts are; it is simply reporting what the facts are, and reporting that Spicer's claim was not supported by those facts.

Kelly Anne Conway made an excellent point when she asked why Chuck Todd wasn't covering substantive news instead of obsessing about crowd size. Todd's "answer" to that was to ask his original question ONCE AGAIN! The truth of the matter is that for many in the liberal media...they begin with the "narrative" and then seek out the "facts" that support that narrative while they ignore what doesn't support the narrative!

No, she didn't make an excellent point, because MSNBC did not make crowd size an issue. They made Spicer lying about something as trivial as crowd size an issue - which it is. If Trump did not want the press talking about something as trivial as crowd size, then he shouldn't have sent his press secretary to the press to tell an unprovoked lie about crowd size. It's just. That. Simple.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Spicer spoke for almost an hour and a half. How much of that time was spent discussing crowd size?

Yet the lead story with the main stream media dealt with little else? As I said before...news outlets like MSNBC and CNN are trying to knee cap the Trump Presidency right from it's inception with the narrative that they are pushing. You won't hear about what he is doing to improve the economy, create jobs, improve security, address illegal immigration. No, what you will hear from MSNBC and CNN will be a daily barrage of negative stories. It's what they have done for the past six months and they show no signs of stopping now. As Kelly Anne Conway asked Chuck Todd...what's important and why aren't they reporting on it?

 

[Czernobog]

Except the media doesn't, and hasn't been , "determining" what facts are. Facts are facts. Period. Full stop. There is no such thing as an "alternative fact". That's just a catchy way of labelling a lie. Even your explanation is an exercise in alternative facts. Sean Spicer came into the Press Room, and announced, without being asked a question by the press, that the crowds at Trump's inauguration were "...“the total largest audience witnessed in person and around the globe,” (emphasis is mine). For those who are not familiar with English, and grammar, "and" means as well as, also. In other words those were two different components that Spicer was claimer were the largest ever. There have been those who have suggested that he was talking about those to things combined. Except that wouldn't have been "...in person and around the world..."; that would have been "in person with around the world viewing...". In order for and to be accurate, and true, both components would need to be true. Now, the latter (around the world) may well have been true (I don't know, I have never really looked at the global viewer numbers for Obama's 2008 inauguration), although I do question the claim. However, by trying to also claim that this was true of the in person audience, that made his claim untrue, or, as Republicans, and Conservatives now, apparently call it, "an alternative fact".

Trying to claim anything else about Spicer's statement is simply trying to suggest that Spicer didn't say what he actually said. Directly to your point, since he offered that "alternative fact" without any question, or prompting, that rather means that Spicer, not MSNBC decided to make the crowd size an issue. If Spicer, Trump, or any of the rest of Trump's administration didn't want it to be an issue, then maybe Trump shouldn't have sent Spicer into the Press Room to tell a lie for his very first presence in the Press Room

Facts are facts? Really? Who determines what is fact and what isn't? The fact police? Was it a "fact" that the Martin Luther King Jr. bust was removed from the Oval Office by Donald Trump? That "fact" was reported by someone in the liberal media in an attempt (I assume) to paint Trump as a racist who hates blacks. So is the Trump Administration wrong in rebutting that "fact"?

you get that's not even sophomoric, but is grade school immaturity, right?!?! "Well, he said something that wasn't true, so I get to, too!!!" Really?!?! That is honestly the level of your ethical reasoning?!?! That is honestly the level of the ethical reasoning of the Trump Administration?!?! Because, believe me, if it is, then Spicer being...let us be polite, and say, less than honest...during his first Press Room Briefing is going to be the least of our problems over the next four years.

I noted that you ignored the second part of my assertion...that the liberal media has been setting the "narrative" for the Trump Administration even before he was sworn in! What's laughable is that Spicer spoke for nearly an hour and a half on a myriad of topics and yet all that was reported by "news" outlets like CNN and MSNBC is his comments on the crowd size on the National Mall! Which of course makes Kelly Anne Conway's comment to Chuck Todd spot on when she asked him why as a journalist was he not covering more important issues that the Trump Administration is dealing with? A question to which Todd's stuttering response was to simply keep repeating his question about crowd size.

I ignored it, because you want to do the same thing that the Trump administration seems to be doing - equating "narrative" with "fact". They are not the same thing. I have no problem with the Trump administration trying to fashion their administration's narrative as they wish. I have a problem with them trying to do so with demonstrably untrue "alternative facts". We cannot even begin to address the issue of forming a narrative, until we can come to an understanding of what a "fact" is, which has, apparently, become a rather fluid concept in the minds of modern Conservatives.

Once again...you failed to answer my question. Who determines what is "fact"? Chuck Todd? You've reached a conclusion that it should be the main stream media that gets to decide what is fact and what isn't...but they've demonstrated such an obvious bias in the past that it begs the question...why would anyone trust THEM to be fair?

Sorry. Holding someone to be accountable for what they say, and do, is not being "biased". As to your question, facts determine themselves. When someone says that the audience at the Trump inauguration was record, either it is a fact, as demonstrated by the verifiable numbers, or it isn't. MSNBC does not get to determine that, and neither does the Trump administration. The numbers are what they are. MSNBC reporting that the numbers do not support Spicer's claim is not "determining" what the facts are; it is simply reporting what the facts are, and reporting that Spicer's claim was not supported by those facts.

Kelly Anne Conway made an excellent point when she asked why Chuck Todd wasn't covering substantive news instead of obsessing about crowd size. Todd's "answer" to that was to ask his original question ONCE AGAIN! The truth of the matter is that for many in the liberal media...they begin with the "narrative" and then seek out the "facts" that support that narrative while they ignore what doesn't support the narrative!

No, she didn't make an excellent point, because MSNBC did not make crowd size an issue. They made Spicer lying about something as trivial as crowd size an issue - which it is. If Trump did not want the press talking about something as trivial as crowd size, then he shouldn't have sent his press secretary to the press to tell an unprovoked lie about crowd size. It's just. That. Simple.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Spicer spoke for almost an hour and a half. How much of that time was spent discussing crowd size?

So? It's okay if he lies, just so long as he said other stuff too? The day that Obama said "If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor," he spoke for over 45 minutes. Sooo...since that was just one line in a 45 minute speech, that made that one statement irrelevant, right?

Yet the lead story with the main stream media dealt with little else?

Yup. Today, Trump had an entire interview, in which he said a lot of different things, but among the things he said, was "I think waterboarding works". Guess what the one thing he said that mattered was? Yesterday, Trump said, and did a lot of things, but one of the things he said was that 3 million undocumented immigrants (illegal aliens, whatever you want to call them) voted. Guess what statement Trump made yesterday consumed the news cycle? I don't care if the president, or his press secretary, says 100 true, or even mostly true things, if. He. Lies - even once - that is all that the press is going to remember that he said. If you want everyone to be consumed, and impressed with all of the not lies that Trump, and his Press Secretary imparts, then it's really easy - Don't. *******. Lie. Not even once. Because I promise you, the only thing that will get covered, and the only thing anyone is going to hear about is going to be the lie.

 

[Czernobog]

I mean, here's is the part I really don't understand. Trump has repeatedly told everyone, His press secretary has repeatedly told everyone, Kellyanne Conway has repeatedly told everyone that "The Press" hates Trump, are biased against Trump, and will take every opportunity that they are given to "make Trump look bad". Well, if you know that, why send your press secretary out in front of them to intentionally give them ammunition to use against you?!?? One would think that the rational, logical thing to do would be to vet, and be very careful that every word you, and your press secretary ever says is the absolute truth, and 100% verifiable fact. Yet, Trump sends Spicer out there to tell a verifiable lie, and then he, his staff, and all of you Trump snowflakes lose your shit when the press jumps on the lie, and throws it back in Trump's face. How could none of you see that that was exactly what was going to happen?