Kellyanne Conway Owns NBC Chuck Todd

[Faun]

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.

"Baghdad Betty"

LMAO

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

There's nothing to dispute.

 

[Faun]

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?

And he lied about the crowd size. That's why it's news.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Wow, you compared a deliberate lie from President Obama about legislation that affects 1/6th of our entire economy with a disagreement over how many people were in the crowd when Trump was sworn in?

 

[Czernobog]

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 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.

Wow, you compared a deliberate lie from President Obama about legislation that affects 1/6th of our entire economy with a disagreement over how many people were in the crowd when Trump was sworn in?

You mean I compared a statement of expectation that proved to be overly optimistic to a flat out lie on Spicer's first day? Yeah. I did.

 

[Oldstyle]

To be quite frank, I don't ANY of you truly want to discuss what Trump is going to be doing to stimulate the economy, fight terror or fix immigration! You want to talk about the silly shit because you're all freaked out that he might actually succeed and if he does...then why would anyone CARE about how many people were there when he was sworn in? That and seven bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks!

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Wow, you compared a deliberate lie from President Obama about legislation that affects 1/6th of our entire economy with a disagreement over how many people were in the crowd when Trump was sworn in?

You mean I compared a statement of expectation that proved to be overly optimistic to a flat out lie on Spicer's first day? Yeah. I did.

A statement of expectation? LOL I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure that was a GUARANTEE by Barack Obama that if you liked your doctor you could keep them...when Jonathon Gruber came out and flat out admitted that they deliberately LIED about the ACA to get it passed!

 

[Oldstyle]

I'd be happy to provide numerous videos of Obama making that guarantee and Gruber admitting it was all a deliberate lie...

 

[Czernobog]

To be quite frank, I don't ANY of you truly want to discuss what Trump is going to be doing to stimulate the economy, fight terror or fix immigration! You want to talk about the silly shit because you're all freaked out that he might actually succeed and if he does...then why would anyone CARE about how many people were there when he was sworn in? That and seven bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks!

Oh, I so want to talk about those things. for instance, let's talk about that wall that Mexico is going to pay for. You know, the one that he just admitted that Americans are going to pay for, that Mexico will reimburse of for "later"; the one that the Mexican President just - again - told Trump to **** off over? You really sure you want to change the subject?

 

[Oldstyle]

That's not a problem for you liberals...but OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! exaggerating the size of a crowd is the worst thing EVER!

 

[Oldstyle]

To be quite frank, I don't ANY of you truly want to discuss what Trump is going to be doing to stimulate the economy, fight terror or fix immigration! You want to talk about the silly shit because you're all freaked out that he might actually succeed and if he does...then why would anyone CARE about how many people were there when he was sworn in? That and seven bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks!

Oh, I so want to talk about those things. for instance, let's talk about that wall that Mexico is going to pay for. You know, the one that he just admitted that Americans are going to pay for, that Mexico will reimburse of for "later"; the one that the Mexican President just - again - told Trump to **** off over? You really sure you want to change the subject?

The Mexican President has no say in that since Trump's plan is to levy a fee on money transfers from the US to Mexico...something he's been advocating for quite some time.

 

[Czernobog]

To be quite frank, I don't ANY of you truly want to discuss what Trump is going to be doing to stimulate the economy, fight terror or fix immigration! You want to talk about the silly shit because you're all freaked out that he might actually succeed and if he does...then why would anyone CARE about how many people were there when he was sworn in? That and seven bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks!

Oh, I so want to talk about those things. for instance, let's talk about that wall that Mexico is going to pay for. You know, the one that he just admitted that Americans are going to pay for, that Mexico will reimburse of for "later"; the one that the Mexican President just - again - told Trump to **** off over? You really sure you want to change the subject?

The Mexican President has no say in that since Trump's plan is to levy a fee on money transfers from the US to Mexico...something he's been advocating for quite some time.

So...when I - an American Citizen - send money to my son who is vacationing in Mexico, I'm going to have to pay another tax, just because the money order is going to Mexico. Yeah...,.that's not Mexico paying for the wall...

And, for that reason, among others, I don't really see Congress letting that plan move forward. What else ya got to "Make Mexico pay" for the wall that they aren't going to pay for?

 

[Oldstyle]

To be quite frank, I don't ANY of you truly want to discuss what Trump is going to be doing to stimulate the economy, fight terror or fix immigration! You want to talk about the silly shit because you're all freaked out that he might actually succeed and if he does...then why would anyone CARE about how many people were there when he was sworn in? That and seven bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks!

Oh, I so want to talk about those things. for instance, let's talk about that wall that Mexico is going to pay for. You know, the one that he just admitted that Americans are going to pay for, that Mexico will reimburse of for "later"; the one that the Mexican President just - again - told Trump to **** off over? You really sure you want to change the subject?

The Mexican President has no say in that since Trump's plan is to levy a fee on money transfers from the US to Mexico...something he's been advocating for quite some time.

So...when I - an American Citizen - send money to my son who is vacationing in Mexico, I'm going to have to pay another tax, just because the money order is going to Mexico. Yeah...,.that's not Mexico paying for the wall...

What Trump is threatening Mexico with is the shutting off of billions of dollars that get sent from the US to Mexico...through wire transfers known as remittances. Doing so would devastate the Mexican economy. The President of Mexico can bluster all he wants about refusing to pay but Trump understands just how important that money is to Mexico.

 

[Oldstyle]

To be quite frank, I don't ANY of you truly want to discuss what Trump is going to be doing to stimulate the economy, fight terror or fix immigration! You want to talk about the silly shit because you're all freaked out that he might actually succeed and if he does...then why would anyone CARE about how many people were there when he was sworn in? That and seven bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks!

Oh, I so want to talk about those things. for instance, let's talk about that wall that Mexico is going to pay for. You know, the one that he just admitted that Americans are going to pay for, that Mexico will reimburse of for "later"; the one that the Mexican President just - again - told Trump to **** off over? You really sure you want to change the subject?

The Mexican President has no say in that since Trump's plan is to levy a fee on money transfers from the US to Mexico...something he's been advocating for quite some time.

So...when I - an American Citizen - send money to my son who is vacationing in Mexico, I'm going to have to pay another tax, just because the money order is going to Mexico. Yeah...,.that's not Mexico paying for the wall...

And, for that reason, among others, I don't really see Congress letting that plan move forward. What else ya got to "Make Mexico pay" for the wall that they aren't going to pay for?

Congress? Gee, you must have missed the last few years of the Obama Administration, Czernobog! The President gets to do whatever he feels like with "Executive Orders"! It's something Barry made commonplace despite conservatives warning liberals that when the shoe was on the other foot they wouldn't have anyone to blame but themselves!

 

[westwall]

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.

LOL

There's nothing to dispute.

Yeah, that's really compelling. One picture taken at the top of the event, the other taken as people are arriving. And dipshits like you believe it. The actual time of the event picture shows something different.

 

[Faun]

To be quite frank, I don't ANY of you truly want to discuss what Trump is going to be doing to stimulate the economy, fight terror or fix immigration! You want to talk about the silly shit because you're all freaked out that he might actually succeed and if he does...then why would anyone CARE about how many people were there when he was sworn in? That and seven bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks!

Those are questions which won't be answerable within his first few days in office. Trump sent his press secretary to lie to America. That's news.

 

[Faun]

I'd be happy to provide numerous videos of Obama making that guarantee and Gruber admitting it was all a deliberate lie...

Obaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaa!!

LMAO

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

There's nothing to dispute.

Yeah, that's really compelling. One picture taken at the top of the event, the other taken as people are arriving. And dipshits like you believe it. The actual time of the event picture shows something different.

The photo you posted is from a different angle.

Secondly, the aerial image I posted of Trump's inauguration was taken while he was speaking and was at, or about, maximum crowd size.

Thirdly, the image from Trump's inauguration, as thin as the crowd was, only went as far back as that white structure. That's only about half way to the Washington monument. That white structure wasn't there during Obama’s inauguration and his crowd filled the mall all the way back to the Washington monument.

Fourthly, no one's been able to produce an aerial shot showing the mall filled to capacity because it never did fill up more than the aerial image I posted.

Fifth, you're dealing with alternative facts.

Sixth, Trump, through his press secretary, lied again.

Seventh, keep re-reading this post until reality sets in.

 

[westwall]

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.

LOL

There's nothing to dispute.

Yeah, that's really compelling. One picture taken at the top of the event, the other taken as people are arriving. And dipshits like you believe it. The actual time of the event picture shows something different.

The photo you posted is from a different angle.

Secondly, the aerial image I posted of Trump's inauguration was taken while he was speaking and was at, or about, maximum crowd size.

Thirdly, the image from Trump's inauguration, as thin as the crowd was, only went as far back as that white structure. That's only about half way to the Washington monument. That white structure wasn't there during Obama’s inauguration and his crowd filled the mall all the way back to the Washington monument.

Fourthly, no one's been able to produce an aerial shot showing the mall filled to capacity because it never did fill up more than the aerial image I posted.

Fifth, you're dealing with alternative facts.

Sixth, Trump, through his press secretary, lied again.

Seventh, keep re-reading this post until reality sets in.

And yours is from a different time. Duh. You can see all the way to that back in the picture I posted and the space is FILLED with people. The picture you posted was from before the inauguration began and silly people, like you, believe it because you so want to.

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

There's nothing to dispute.

Yeah, that's really compelling. One picture taken at the top of the event, the other taken as people are arriving. And dipshits like you believe it. The actual time of the event picture shows something different.

The photo you posted is from a different angle.

Secondly, the aerial image I posted of Trump's inauguration was taken while he was speaking and was at, or about, maximum crowd size.

Thirdly, the image from Trump's inauguration, as thin as the crowd was, only went as far back as that white structure. That's only about half way to the Washington monument. That white structure wasn't there during Obama’s inauguration and his crowd filled the mall all the way back to the Washington monument.

Fourthly, no one's been able to produce an aerial shot showing the mall filled to capacity because it never did fill up more than the aerial image I posted.

Fifth, you're dealing with alternative facts.

Sixth, Trump, through his press secretary, lied again.

Seventh, keep re-reading this post until reality sets in.

And yours is from a different time. Duh. You can see all the way to that back in the picture I posted and the space is FILLED with people. The picture you posted was from before the inauguration began and silly people, like you, believe it because you so want to.

LOL

Mine is from when Trump was speaking. You're, being from a different angle, hides the gaps the aerial view reveals. That's why you don't post a shot from the aerial view -- because at no time was the mall full. And you ignored the part about how Trump's crowd goes only as far back as that white structure whereas Obama's crowd extends all the way back to the Washington monument.

I told you, you should keep re-reading my post until reality sets in. Pity you also ignored my advice.