Todd v. Conway Oh No She Didn't

[saveliberty]

So, a bias media is more dangerous than an administration controlling the truth?

And honestly, did you really expect the Trump administration to declare war on the press right out of the gate? Does he not have bigger fish to fry?

And I got to tell you something. It don't take much thinking to be bothered by the fact that Trump's primary concern during his first weekend on the job was the press's portrayal of his coronation numbers.

Why do we have to choose between a bias media or controlling administration? By the way that is what an administration does, it controls. Media should be unbiased and the administration honest.

A biased media filters everything a president is trying to accomplish. Of course it is going to be a big priority. You also make it appear he didn't do anything else over the weekend. We both know that is not true. Why do you lie?

 

[saveliberty]

It was answered by example, not direct words
I don't know what that means.
You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?
Forgive me, I thought I did answer it. I don't know what else needs to be said. Chuck Todd asked why the President would choose to use his first Press Briefing to "litigate a provable falsehood." Trump's pronouncement, via Spicer, was provably false about crowd size on several points. It is embarrassing and a little frightening to have a President come out on his first day in office and say the sky is Green, turn in a huff and say "that's all, folks."
Jesus, saveliberty, how anyone defends that, I don't know. All the fact checkers, even Fox, called him on it. So what exactly else is there to say?

I forgot to say something in my earlier post OldLady. I generally like you, it pains me we disagree on several political issues.

 

[Winston]

It was a fair question that has no honest answer, so she had to do what she did. She did it professionally, but she has been doing it for months, so I'm not sure why anyone is so surprised about her capacity to spin and deflect for her boss.
The only thing a little out of the ordinary was the intensity of her anger. I really liked that threat early in the interview that she might have to rethink their relationship if he was going to act like that. LOL Threaten to cut off a Sunday talk show host from the President's guru? That was low. I give Todd credit for not pulling back.

It was answered, just not the way Todd wanted it answered. Can you not see the point of all of this is to further expose the media bias? Actually listen to what Todd said in his question. Do you even know his words? What words did he use? Not paraphrasing, the actual words.

See Post 78. It was a fair question.

It was answered by example, not direct words. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it more true OldLady. You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?

It was answered by example, not direct words
I don't know what that means.
You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?
Forgive me, I thought I did answer it. I don't know what else needs to be said. Chuck Todd asked why the President would choose to use his first Press Briefing to "litigate a provable falsehood." Trump's pronouncement, via Spicer, was provably false about crowd size on several points. It is embarrassing and a little frightening to have a President come out on his first day in office and say the sky is Green, turn in a huff and say "that's all, folks."
Jesus, saveliberty, how anyone defends that, I don't know. All the fact checkers, even Fox, called him on it. So what exactly else is there to say?

You can ask a question without having judgments and provocations. A professional and unbiased interviewer would have. By doing what Conway did, she exposed Todd as biased and THAT was her answer. Showing Todd as part of the problem.

Oh come on. Was yesterday the first time you ever watched MTP? Or hell, any Sunday morning news show for that matter. And she "exposed" Todd did she? What, you mean nobody thought Todd was biased before? Nobody ever noticed his "provocations" before?

And what the hell, when did we start wanting our media to ask nice questions. Next thing you know you will want lawyers to be nice during cross. The whole concept is just dumb. Like I said, you guys are not thinking.

 

[OldLady]

In a way, I'm glad there is discussion of bias in the media again. For a long time, we took a snooze on that. There is a lot of hidden meaning in the messages sent through the media, and of course it influences us, especially if we are not aware of it. Where I disagree with the Trump supporters on this issue is that the MSM bias is some insurmountable problem.

Bias is not lying--it's reporting through a filter. What do we lead with tonight? Who do we interview regarding this issue? Which pictures do we show of this event? All that.
Every single human involved in any news show has a bias, but it is just as obvious with right wing media as it is with left wing media, and I fail to see why the left wing media's information is to be discredited while a right wing media organization is trustworthy.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Winston on this one--there is something absolutely sinister in what Trump and Spicer and Conway did this weekend, out and out lying and expecting us to believe it--no, demanding we believe it. Yes, there is a leftward slant to the MSM but they weren't lying about crowd size. Was it NICE to compare it to Obama's, which no President before or probably in the future will ever exceed? NO. It was snarky. But it was true and it was a win for the media in the end.

 

[OldLady]

It was answered by example, not direct words
I don't know what that means.
You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?
Forgive me, I thought I did answer it. I don't know what else needs to be said. Chuck Todd asked why the President would choose to use his first Press Briefing to "litigate a provable falsehood." Trump's pronouncement, via Spicer, was provably false about crowd size on several points. It is embarrassing and a little frightening to have a President come out on his first day in office and say the sky is Green, turn in a huff and say "that's all, folks."
Jesus, saveliberty, how anyone defends that, I don't know. All the fact checkers, even Fox, called him on it. So what exactly else is there to say?

I forgot to say something in my earlier post OldLady. I generally like you, it pains me we disagree on several political issues.

Like you, too, scamp. Allah loves wondrous variety, as our friend in Robin Hood said.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was a fair question that has no honest answer, so she had to do what she did. She did it professionally, but she has been doing it for months, so I'm not sure why anyone is so surprised about her capacity to spin and deflect for her boss.
The only thing a little out of the ordinary was the intensity of her anger. I really liked that threat early in the interview that she might have to rethink their relationship if he was going to act like that. LOL Threaten to cut off a Sunday talk show host from the President's guru? That was low. I give Todd credit for not pulling back.

It was answered, just not the way Todd wanted it answered. Can you not see the point of all of this is to further expose the media bias? Actually listen to what Todd said in his question. Do you even know his words? What words did he use? Not paraphrasing, the actual words.

See Post 78. It was a fair question.

It was answered by example, not direct words. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it more true OldLady. You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?

It was answered by example, not direct words
I don't know what that means.
You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?
Forgive me, I thought I did answer it. I don't know what else needs to be said. Chuck Todd asked why the President would choose to use his first Press Briefing to "litigate a provable falsehood." Trump's pronouncement, via Spicer, was provably false about crowd size on several points. It is embarrassing and a little frightening to have a President come out on his first day in office and say the sky is Green, turn in a huff and say "that's all, folks."
Jesus, saveliberty, how anyone defends that, I don't know. All the fact checkers, even Fox, called him on it. So what exactly else is there to say?

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

 

[OldLady]

It was a fair question that has no honest answer, so she had to do what she did. She did it professionally, but she has been doing it for months, so I'm not sure why anyone is so surprised about her capacity to spin and deflect for her boss.
The only thing a little out of the ordinary was the intensity of her anger. I really liked that threat early in the interview that she might have to rethink their relationship if he was going to act like that. LOL Threaten to cut off a Sunday talk show host from the President's guru? That was low. I give Todd credit for not pulling back.

It was answered, just not the way Todd wanted it answered. Can you not see the point of all of this is to further expose the media bias? Actually listen to what Todd said in his question. Do you even know his words? What words did he use? Not paraphrasing, the actual words.

See Post 78. It was a fair question.

It was answered by example, not direct words. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it more true OldLady. You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?

It was answered by example, not direct words
I don't know what that means.
You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?
Forgive me, I thought I did answer it. I don't know what else needs to be said. Chuck Todd asked why the President would choose to use his first Press Briefing to "litigate a provable falsehood." Trump's pronouncement, via Spicer, was provably false about crowd size on several points. It is embarrassing and a little frightening to have a President come out on his first day in office and say the sky is Green, turn in a huff and say "that's all, folks."
Jesus, saveliberty, how anyone defends that, I don't know. All the fact checkers, even Fox, called him on it. So what exactly else is there to say?

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

Trump's crowd was plenty big enough and it only mattered to mean spirited opposition. And to Trump, apparently.
If no one knows how many people attended either inauguration, how did Trump come up with the idea that his was the biggest?
You've probably read the fact checkers on this, haven't you? Even Fox has corrected him on this. THAT is where the real concern lies--with his willful lies. What other "Alternative Facts" is he going to pronounce next? It isn't so much the silly thing we're talking about--but he is the one who chose it.

 

[saveliberty]

I'd like to believe Trump's over stating is to make the point media is biased. Why he can't just say that and give the example of how they made Hillary's rallies look bigger and Trump's smaller instead, I do not know. Promotion is a big part of Trump's style, it is obviously a hard thing for him to tone down.

None of that is an excuse for media to treat the president disrespectfully, keep up a daily assault and generally promote liberal points of view.

 

[Winston]

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

Talk about accepting the word of the administration. Come on, let's examine your five factors.
1. Rain---that is not supportive of the "alternative fact", that Trump had the largest crowd ever. That is an excuse as to why he didn't.
2. Security--again, not supportive of the alternative fact. Again, an excuse. Regardless, not true. There were no additional security measures beyond those of the last inauguration, so says the Treasury department.
3. Time of picture--Perhaps, although disputed by every media outlet. But that does not dismiss the transit data, which also does not support the alternative fact.
4. Ground cover--Wrong, the cover was used during the last inauguration, so says the National Park Service. Not sure rather it was there for his first. Rather weak argument regardless.
5. Commuters--well yes, that is just it. And yet the transit data does not support the alternative fact.

So two of your five factors don't support the alternative fact. Two of them are weak and refuted by other data sources. And one of them is a clear refutation of the alternative fact on it's face.

 

[westwall]

She was calling todd on his obvious bias, and his total hypocrisy. She had actual facts at the tip of her tongue and all he could do was bluster and whine. She was spot on and he looked like a high school reporter. And not a very good one at that.

I just watched it again. Todd is not bias. He is an equal asshole with everyone, sparring with Schumer right now. Always looking for a gotcha. Damn but I miss Russert. That can't possibly be used as an excuse. Hell, it should be expected. Honestly, first day in the big leagues, she should have stepped back on that brush back pitch and blasted it out of the park. Instead, she all but ran for the dugout, weakly attempting deflection with wornout campaign pivots. Like I said elsewhere, painful to watch.

And what is this thing with the Trump people and their perceived enemies? What kind of treatment do they expect after disparaging a group of people? A warm welcome? Spicer has tainted his relationship with the press beyond repair. It was already tenuous at best. He won't last long.

That's your opinion of course.

What matters is how the public perceives this spat between the establishment propandists and a new administration trying to get things done for the people of America.

Well, I could be looking at this all wrong. Instead of Spicer and Conway being incompetent rookies, well perhaps they were the consummate pros, making great progress in the strategy to take over the truth.

]Trump’s Two-Step Strategy To Take Over the Truth.

Step one--Lie and disparage the press. Spicer's meeting, Trumps speech at CIA headquarters, Conway's Sunday news appearances. The goal here, to convince the people that the press is not to be trusted with the news. That the "facts" the press presents are not the "real" facts. Which brings us to step two,

Step two--circumvent the press and take the "truth" directly to the people. Twitter, Facebook and other forms of social media, public appearances, "fireside chats" perhaps. Conway kind of slipped up with the "alternative facts" statement. But perhaps "alternative reality" was what was on her mind.

Yep, maybe I am wrong. I thought these first couple of days were showing that Trump's press crew couldn't do their primary job--control the message. But that might not be what they are attempting to do. Maybe they are attempting to control the TRUTH. That is both scary and dangerous. But, if this messageboard is any indication---they are doing a bangup job.

The message is the media is biased. I know you are incapable of believing that, but it makes no difference.

Perhaps the media is bias, irrelevant. Can't the "free market" take care of that?

But which is more likely, a "free" press with a bias, or an administration with a bias? And which is more dangerous, a "free" press with a bias presentation of the news, or an administration CONTROLLING the truth?

I mean damn, can't you righties think at least a little for yourselves? Leaders of a democracy don't seek to control the truth, that is what despots do.

The free market has been taking care of it. However, when the establishment has as much money as it does (stolen from the middle class) it takes a long time to get rid of them. I assume you have been paying attention to the fact that ALL main stream media is now held in very low esteem, and that the flagships such as the NYT and other media outlets are on the verge of collapse? Much of that is due to the fact that we the people no longer listen to them. They have been shown to lie repeatedly and the people have had enough. That's why the old media dinosaurs ARE dying.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

Talk about accepting the word of the administration. Come on, let's examine your five factors.
1. Rain---that is not supportive of the "alternative fact", that Trump had the largest crowd ever. That is an excuse as to why he didn't.
2. Security--again, not supportive of the alternative fact. Again, an excuse. Regardless, not true. There were no additional security measures beyond those of the last inauguration, so says the Treasury department.
3. Time of picture--Perhaps, although disputed by every media outlet. But that does not dismiss the transit data, which also does not support the alternative fact.
4. Ground cover--Wrong, the cover was used during the last inauguration, so says the National Park Service. Not sure rather it was there for his first. Rather weak argument regardless.
5. Commuters--well yes, that is just it. And yet the transit data does not support the alternative fact.

So two of your five factors don't support the alternative fact. Two of them are weak and refuted by other data sources. And one of them is a clear refutation of the alternative fact on it's face.

So you want to rely on circumstantial evidence? The media is allowed to report things as fact, when no confirmation is available? Congratulations you have given birth to an alternative fact!

 

[saveliberty]

The best your going to get is a draw Winston. Frankly, you forgot your crayons.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was answered, just not the way Todd wanted it answered. Can you not see the point of all of this is to further expose the media bias? Actually listen to what Todd said in his question. Do you even know his words? What words did he use? Not paraphrasing, the actual words.

See Post 78. It was a fair question.

It was answered by example, not direct words. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it more true OldLady. You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?

It was answered by example, not direct words
I don't know what that means.
You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?
Forgive me, I thought I did answer it. I don't know what else needs to be said. Chuck Todd asked why the President would choose to use his first Press Briefing to "litigate a provable falsehood." Trump's pronouncement, via Spicer, was provably false about crowd size on several points. It is embarrassing and a little frightening to have a President come out on his first day in office and say the sky is Green, turn in a huff and say "that's all, folks."
Jesus, saveliberty, how anyone defends that, I don't know. All the fact checkers, even Fox, called him on it. So what exactly else is there to say?

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

Trump's crowd was plenty big enough and it only mattered to mean spirited opposition. And to Trump, apparently.
If no one knows how many people attended either inauguration, how did Trump come up with the idea that his was the biggest?
You've probably read the fact checkers on this, haven't you? Even Fox has corrected him on this. THAT is where the real concern lies--with his willful lies. What other "Alternative Facts" is he going to pronounce next? It isn't so much the silly thing we're talking about--but he is the one who chose it.

Here’s the rub,......the media has been caught on numerous occations publishing faked reports, videos, etc. This one and the MLK bust fiasco are just the latest. Why must we forget this undeniable fact and sheepishly go back to trusting them again??

 

[Winston]

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

Talk about accepting the word of the administration. Come on, let's examine your five factors.
1. Rain---that is not supportive of the "alternative fact", that Trump had the largest crowd ever. That is an excuse as to why he didn't.
2. Security--again, not supportive of the alternative fact. Again, an excuse. Regardless, not true. There were no additional security measures beyond those of the last inauguration, so says the Treasury department.
3. Time of picture--Perhaps, although disputed by every media outlet. But that does not dismiss the transit data, which also does not support the alternative fact.
4. Ground cover--Wrong, the cover was used during the last inauguration, so says the National Park Service. Not sure rather it was there for his first. Rather weak argument regardless.
5. Commuters--well yes, that is just it. And yet the transit data does not support the alternative fact.

So two of your five factors don't support the alternative fact. Two of them are weak and refuted by other data sources. And one of them is a clear refutation of the alternative fact on it's face.

So you want to rely on circumstantial evidence? The media is allowed to report things as fact, when no confirmation is available? Congratulations you have given birth to an alternative fact!

Yes, the media is allowed to report things like transit numbers as facts when they are verified. The media is allowed to post pictures. But funny thing, it wasn't the media that first posted the pictures. It was the National Park Service, THE GOVERNMENT. You can bet some heads are going to roll over that.

Besides, the press never made any claims as to the largest crowd ever. That is all on the Trump administration and Trump himself. I doubt anyone expected his crowd to exceed the historical first Obama inauguration, except maybe Trump with his overblown ego.

But all this just noise. I am here to tell you, rather the POTUS is a Republican, a Democrat, or the second coming of Christ, you better take everything that comes out of their mouths with a little grain of salt. You can't blindly accept what they are saying as the gospel.

And the press. Bias or no bias, it is not their job to play nice with the president and his spokespeople. Hell, I expect them to get under their skin. To call them out. I can sort out the bias part on my own.

 

[Winston]

See Post 78. It was a fair question.

It was answered by example, not direct words. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it more true OldLady. You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?

It was answered by example, not direct words
I don't know what that means.
You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?
Forgive me, I thought I did answer it. I don't know what else needs to be said. Chuck Todd asked why the President would choose to use his first Press Briefing to "litigate a provable falsehood." Trump's pronouncement, via Spicer, was provably false about crowd size on several points. It is embarrassing and a little frightening to have a President come out on his first day in office and say the sky is Green, turn in a huff and say "that's all, folks."
Jesus, saveliberty, how anyone defends that, I don't know. All the fact checkers, even Fox, called him on it. So what exactly else is there to say?

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

Trump's crowd was plenty big enough and it only mattered to mean spirited opposition. And to Trump, apparently.
If no one knows how many people attended either inauguration, how did Trump come up with the idea that his was the biggest?
You've probably read the fact checkers on this, haven't you? Even Fox has corrected him on this. THAT is where the real concern lies--with his willful lies. What other "Alternative Facts" is he going to pronounce next? It isn't so much the silly thing we're talking about--but he is the one who chose it.

Here’s the rub,......the media has been caught on numerous occations publishing faked reports, videos, etc. This one and the MLK bust fiasco are just the latest. Why must we forget this undeniable fact and sheepishly go back to trusting them again??

Uh, who "caught" the media? Like the bust thing, how did that go down? How did the "media" handle that?

Now, Trump has lied. Numerous times. And he has been "caught". How does he handle it? You notice a difference?

 

[OldLady]

See Post 78. It was a fair question.

It was answered by example, not direct words. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it more true OldLady. You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?

It was answered by example, not direct words
I don't know what that means.
You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?
Forgive me, I thought I did answer it. I don't know what else needs to be said. Chuck Todd asked why the President would choose to use his first Press Briefing to "litigate a provable falsehood." Trump's pronouncement, via Spicer, was provably false about crowd size on several points. It is embarrassing and a little frightening to have a President come out on his first day in office and say the sky is Green, turn in a huff and say "that's all, folks."
Jesus, saveliberty, how anyone defends that, I don't know. All the fact checkers, even Fox, called him on it. So what exactly else is there to say?

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

Trump's crowd was plenty big enough and it only mattered to mean spirited opposition. And to Trump, apparently.
If no one knows how many people attended either inauguration, how did Trump come up with the idea that his was the biggest?
You've probably read the fact checkers on this, haven't you? Even Fox has corrected him on this. THAT is where the real concern lies--with his willful lies. What other "Alternative Facts" is he going to pronounce next? It isn't so much the silly thing we're talking about--but he is the one who chose it.

Here’s the rub,......the media has been caught on numerous occations publishing faked reports, videos, etc. This one and the MLK bust fiasco are just the latest. Why must we forget this undeniable fact and sheepishly go back to trusting them again??

I agree with you, the press is NOT enamored of Trump. It was mean to compare the crowd size for ANY president to Obama's. When it comes to ol' Winston's/MLK's busts, do remember that the media started that buzz when Obama moved him. So a reporter eager to start a buzz again made an understandable mistake and corrected it. REPORTERS ARE PAINS IN THE ASS. They cut people's quotes and they never spell anyone's name right. They are out for the sensational news that "sells," and they want it first. Do they "harp" on Trump excessively? Sure, his name "sells" and I think everyone is interested in what his new administration will be like. But the way Trump is demonizing the media isn't fair, either. It keeps them on the defensive as well as causing reason for a "grudge." He blames them for reporting the words that come out of his mouth. That is not fair.
Both sides are responsible for this war, I think.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

Talk about accepting the word of the administration. Come on, let's examine your five factors.
1. Rain---that is not supportive of the "alternative fact", that Trump had the largest crowd ever. That is an excuse as to why he didn't.
2. Security--again, not supportive of the alternative fact. Again, an excuse. Regardless, not true. There were no additional security measures beyond those of the last inauguration, so says the Treasury department.
3. Time of picture--Perhaps, although disputed by every media outlet. But that does not dismiss the transit data, which also does not support the alternative fact.
4. Ground cover--Wrong, the cover was used during the last inauguration, so says the National Park Service. Not sure rather it was there for his first. Rather weak argument regardless.
5. Commuters--well yes, that is just it. And yet the transit data does not support the alternative fact.

So two of your five factors don't support the alternative fact. Two of them are weak and refuted by other data sources. And one of them is a clear refutation of the alternative fact on it's face.

So you want to rely on circumstantial evidence? The media is allowed to report things as fact, when no confirmation is available? Congratulations you have given birth to an alternative fact!

Yes, the media is allowed to report things like transit numbers as facts when they are verified. The media is allowed to post pictures. But funny thing, it wasn't the media that first posted the pictures. It was the National Park Service, THE GOVERNMENT. You can bet some heads are going to roll over that.

Besides, the press never made any claims as to the largest crowd ever. That is all on the Trump administration and Trump himself. I doubt anyone expected his crowd to exceed the historical first Obama inauguration, except maybe Trump with his overblown ego.

But all this just noise. I am here to tell you, rather the POTUS is a Republican, a Democrat, or the second coming of Christ, you better take everything that comes out of their mouths with a little grain of salt. You can't blindly accept what they are saying as the gospel.

And the press. Bias or no bias, it is not their job to play nice with the president and his spokespeople. Hell, I expect them to get under their skin. To call them out. I can sort out the bias part on my own.

If the photos came from the National Park Service.......under the direction of Obama political appointees...that explains the white sheeting..........nuff said.

 

[westwall]

It was answered by example, not direct words. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it more true OldLady. You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?

It was answered by example, not direct words
I don't know what that means.
You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?
Forgive me, I thought I did answer it. I don't know what else needs to be said. Chuck Todd asked why the President would choose to use his first Press Briefing to "litigate a provable falsehood." Trump's pronouncement, via Spicer, was provably false about crowd size on several points. It is embarrassing and a little frightening to have a President come out on his first day in office and say the sky is Green, turn in a huff and say "that's all, folks."
Jesus, saveliberty, how anyone defends that, I don't know. All the fact checkers, even Fox, called him on it. So what exactly else is there to say?

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

Trump's crowd was plenty big enough and it only mattered to mean spirited opposition. And to Trump, apparently.
If no one knows how many people attended either inauguration, how did Trump come up with the idea that his was the biggest?
You've probably read the fact checkers on this, haven't you? Even Fox has corrected him on this. THAT is where the real concern lies--with his willful lies. What other "Alternative Facts" is he going to pronounce next? It isn't so much the silly thing we're talking about--but he is the one who chose it.

Here’s the rub,......the media has been caught on numerous occations publishing faked reports, videos, etc. This one and the MLK bust fiasco are just the latest. Why must we forget this undeniable fact and sheepishly go back to trusting them again??

I agree with you, the press is NOT enamored of Trump. It was mean to compare the crowd size for ANY president to Obama's. When it comes to ol' Winston's/MLK's busts, do remember that the media started that buzz when Obama moved him. So a reporter eager to start a buzz again made an understandable mistake and corrected it. REPORTERS ARE PAINS IN THE ASS. They cut people's quotes and they never spell anyone's name right. They are out for the sensational news that "sells," and they want it first. Do they "harp" on Trump excessively? Sure, his name "sells" and I think everyone is interested in what his new administration will be like. But the way Trump is demonizing the media isn't fair, either. It keeps them on the defensive as well as causing reason for a "grudge." He blames them for reporting the words that come out of his mouth. That is not fair.
Both sides are responsible for this war, I think.

I disagree. The media NEEDS to be demonized when they KNOWINGLY publish things that are untrue specifically to influence the course of an election. The MSM was completely, and totally in the tank for hillary and obama and would cover for them whenever they made a mistake or said something that was untrue. The media is nothing more than a propaganda arm of the DNC and that is a perversion of the system.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was answered by example, not direct words. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it more true OldLady. You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?

It was answered by example, not direct words
I don't know what that means.
You also ignored my request to you in the paragraph above. Any particular reason you don't answer?
Forgive me, I thought I did answer it. I don't know what else needs to be said. Chuck Todd asked why the President would choose to use his first Press Briefing to "litigate a provable falsehood." Trump's pronouncement, via Spicer, was provably false about crowd size on several points. It is embarrassing and a little frightening to have a President come out on his first day in office and say the sky is Green, turn in a huff and say "that's all, folks."
Jesus, saveliberty, how anyone defends that, I don't know. All the fact checkers, even Fox, called him on it. So what exactly else is there to say?

I'm a little surprised.
You've accepted the last administration telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes and to just take their word for everything.

And as to a provable falsehood, this is a lie. Nobody knows how many people attended either inauguration. A picture with no timestamp proves nothing. Neither is it relevant due to discounted factors. The factors are as follows:

1. Rain was predicted and many may have chosen not to attend but instead chose to watch it on TV
2. SECURITY was extremely high due to an increased threat which may or possibly did slow attendee particpation
3. The time the picture was taken could have been intentionally meant to give an inaccurate picture of the real attendence at the event
4. White sheeting that was clearly not used during Obama's swearing in was used to provide contrast between empty spaces and the crowds
5. Washington D.C. has a majority black population, so local residents could camp out on the mall and fill the place up quicker. Many of Trump's supporters had to travel much greater distances to arrive in time

Last point. Does attendance at the inauguration really matter anyway????

Really????

Trump's crowd was plenty big enough and it only mattered to mean spirited opposition. And to Trump, apparently.
If no one knows how many people attended either inauguration, how did Trump come up with the idea that his was the biggest?
You've probably read the fact checkers on this, haven't you? Even Fox has corrected him on this. THAT is where the real concern lies--with his willful lies. What other "Alternative Facts" is he going to pronounce next? It isn't so much the silly thing we're talking about--but he is the one who chose it.

Here’s the rub,......the media has been caught on numerous occations publishing faked reports, videos, etc. This one and the MLK bust fiasco are just the latest. Why must we forget this undeniable fact and sheepishly go back to trusting them again??

I agree with you, the press is NOT enamored of Trump. It was mean to compare the crowd size for ANY president to Obama's. When it comes to ol' Winston's/MLK's busts, do remember that the media started that buzz when Obama moved him. So a reporter eager to start a buzz again made an understandable mistake and corrected it. REPORTERS ARE PAINS IN THE ASS. They cut people's quotes and they never spell anyone's name right. They are out for the sensational news that "sells," and they want it first. Do they "harp" on Trump excessively? Sure, his name "sells" and I think everyone is interested in what his new administration will be like. But the way Trump is demonizing the media isn't fair, either. It keeps them on the defensive as well as causing reason for a "grudge." He blames them for reporting the words that come out of his mouth. That is not fair.
Both sides are responsible for this war, I think.

I don't agree.

The media needs a swift kick in the nuts and this should be repeated as often as it takes to sink in. They've been taking potshots at us for decades. It's time they got a dose of their own Excrement in return.

 

[Dragonlady]

Dismantling the liberal media should be a top priority.

In violation of the Constitution which guarantees the freedom of the press? Right wing media have been lying about just about everything for years, to the point where you believe everything but the MSM tells you. That's why you fell for an alt-right liar like Trump. You're trained to believe anything BUT the truth, including the evidence of your own eyes and ears.

I say this as someone from OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES and who doesn't get my news from the American mainstream media, rather from the foreign press. Unlike you, I believe what I see and hear, and you people have been played like Mozart.

You do not understand the Constitution. We are free to not watch the MSM which effects ad revenues and changes content. We are also free to challenge the press.

Trump is never going to get the MSM to accept his lies and doublespeak as truth, nor should they. It is their JOB to uncover the lies. In Trump's case, it's like shooting weasels in a barrel because he's incapable of telling the truth - even about the size of the crowds at his Inauguration.

Once again, telling us that we didn't see or hear what we saw and heard is lying. There are no "alternative facts". There are only facts and lies.