What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Inauguration (1 Viewer)

Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
No.  Trump was comparing his first inauguration's ratings to Obama's second.  Whether that's an apples to apples comparison or not, it is not a lie.  In this instance. 

I'm frankly less concerned about the truth of what Trump's saying than that he feels it's something the President needs to address at all. 
Click to expand...
Ramsey nails it as usual.   :thumbup:

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hey I agree, make sense, it's just that Spicer trotted out this "total" most watched ever business. Seems funny to me that even the Breitbarts of the world aren't coming up with versions of totals. Total US in attendance and tv? Total US and global tv? Total US tv & digital? No idea.

The worst was Trump's 1-1.5 million in attendance claim in front of the CIA, I'm sure even Spicer couldn't stomach that one...
Click to expand...
Trump claimed that? :lmao:

 
Henry Ford said:
I don't think there's a real argument to be made that the media doesn't tend toward liberal schools of thought and perspective.  There are many reasons for that, lots of reasonable conversations to be had about it.  Part of it is the type of people who get into journalism, part of it is the way the Republican Party has dealt with journalists in the past as opposed to how the Democrats have, part is what people are more likely to actually watch the news and the focus on ratings, many other factors.

Higgs, you are precisely the kind of person targeted by a full-on lie campaign like the one happening with that presser yesterday.  Spicer didn't make a mistake.
Click to expand...
You may be surprised, but I like this post. You very well may be on to something here Henry with the loyalty test.  It's an interesting theory.

 
shader said:
Trump claimed that? :lmao:
Click to expand...
Yes.  In front of the CIA.

He also went on a rant about how many Time magazine covers he's been on, a lot more than Tom Brady.  Yes, he brought up the dearth of Tom Brady Time magazine covers while addressing the CIA just hours after being inaugurated.   

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
No.  Trump was comparing his first inauguration's ratings to Obama's second.  Whether that's an apples to apples comparison or not, it is not a lie.  In this instance. 

I'm frankly less concerned about the truth of what Trump's saying than that he feels it's something the President needs to address at all. 
Click to expand...
Fair point, but Trump isn't in trouble for that representation.

My point to HT is relying on Trump's assertion (or any politician's) to prove a fact is pretty crazy. Accepting that a thing is so because Trump (or politician x/y/z) says it is so is authoritarian at face value.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Dickinson said:
Yes.  In front of the CIA.

He also went on a rant about how many Time magazine covers he's been on, a lot more than Tom Brady.  Yes, he brought up the dearth of Tom Brady Time magazine covers while addressing the CIA just hours after being inaugurated.   
Click to expand...
Imagine hanging with this guy for a weekend :lol:  

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
No.  Trump was comparing his first inauguration's ratings to Obama's second.  Whether that's an apples to apples comparison or not, it is not a lie.  In this instance. 

I'm frankly less concerned about the truth of what Trump's saying than that he feels it's something the President needs to address at all. 
Click to expand...
Going off his press secretary: 

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe.  "

 
TobiasFunke said:
It was Trump's opponents playing him.  It doesn't matter of course, but everyone knew it would bother the thin-skinned Trump to the point that he'd end up making an ### of himself on his first day on the job.  

And it worked to perfection. Trump went on an insecure rant in front of a CIA memorial wall and sent his press secretary out to completely undermine the credibility of his administration on his first day in office.

If a bunch of people on social media can play him like that, imagine what our actual  enemies will be able to do. 
Click to expand...
Yes Trump is the one getting played. Lofl 20 months and people still haven't learned. 

 
Slapdash said:
Going off his press secretary: 

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe.  "
Click to expand...
Yes.  That was lie.  I thought we were just talking about the tweet in question where Trump cited the 31 million viewers (which is the number I've seen reported) and compared it to Obama's viewers in 2013.  As far as I know, that tweet was broadly accurate.  I don't know the 2013 viewers from memory, but I know the 39 million I've seen quoted for Obama was from 2009. 

 
Joe Summer said:
scooter:
 

It wasn't a tweet. It was a pool report that was issued to other reporters. All it said was "The MLK bust was no longer on display". The reporter wrote it because the bust was actually obscured by Secret Service agents and he honestly thought it was no longer on display. Once the Secret Service agents moved, he saw the bust and reported to the pool, "The MLK bust remains in the Oval Office".

This is what the Trump administration chooses to attack. No discrepancy is too small for them. It's all about creating distrust, confusion, and loyalty.
Click to expand...
The story spread to major news sites.  I wouldn't have been too pleased about it either.  The reporter was an idiot and the news sites carrying the story should have spent a few minutes verifying the accuracy.  This kind of reactive reporting is inexcusable.  Take time to verify that what you are reporting is true.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Dickinson said:
Yes.  In front of the CIA.

He also went on a rant about how many Time magazine covers he's been on, a lot more than Tom Brady.  Yes, he brought up the dearth of Tom Brady Time magazine covers while addressing the CIA just hours after being inaugurated.   
Click to expand...
He also said he'd been on 14-15 Time covers, which he said he thought was a record.

Boy it sure would be a tragedy if he ever sees this.

 
Higgs said:
You may be surprised, but I like this post. You very well may be on to something here Henry with the loyalty test.  It's an interesting theory.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised.  No offense to anyone else on this board, but I consider you the most thoughtful and skeptical Trump voter on this board.

 
Josh Rogin Verified account ‏@joshrogin

.@KellyannePolls: "It's really time for [Trump] to put in his own security and intelligence community." What? @ThisWeekABC
Click to expand...
:stalker: Yaknow I will take into consideration that Trump's followers constantly bay that we should not take Trump literally and therefore he is constantly FOS (that's supposed to be an argument for Trump), but if this from KAC is true we are headed for a showdown. It's abnormal, and un-American.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rohn Jambo said:
I don't get the boohaha about the crowd size.  Most Americans watch the inauguration on TV or through live stream anyway.
Click to expand...
Well crowd sizes are what they are. Why the president sent him press secretary out to lie about on --- I don't get that either.

 
here's the thing. they can go to war with the press all they want. Spicer, Conway, Trump, et al can simply call a meeting with Fox. They'll use that to calm the waters with the older crowd and Breitbart et al with the younger crowd. Going to war with the press doesn't matter because they don't speak to/for their constituency.

 
saintfool said:
here's the thing. they can go to war with the press all they want. Spicer, Conway, Trump, et al can simply call a meeting with Fox. They'll use that to calm the waters with the older crowd and Breitbart et al with the younger crowd. Going to war with the press doesn't matter because they don't speak to/for their constituency.
Click to expand...
Not all of Fox.  Maybe Hannity will comply.  But if he ship is sinking at some point Fox will presumably jump off.  For example, here's Chris Wallace killing Priebus on this stuff this morning.

 
TobiasFunke said:
saintfool said:
here's the thing. they can go to war with the press all they want. Spicer, Conway, Trump, et al can simply call a meeting with Fox. They'll use that to calm the waters with the older crowd and Breitbart et al with the younger crowd. Going to war with the press doesn't matter because they don't speak to/for their constituency.
Click to expand...
Not all of Fox.  Maybe Hannity will comply.  But if he ship is sinking at some point Fox will presumably jump off.  For example, here's Chris Wallace killing Priebus on this stuff this morning.
Click to expand...
Yes.  There are enough decent journalists at Fox left.  Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith namely.

 
Slapdash said:
Yes.  There are enough decent journalists at Fox left.  Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith namely.
Click to expand...
I said when Trump won, there's a real possibility that Fox becomes the most legitimate news organization on television now.  They haven't been proving me wrong.

 
Rove! said:
More people are streaming now than they Were 8 years ago.

this screenshot shows 9.2 million views for the NBC stream alone

http://archive.is/w7P3h
Click to expand...
Rove, here is a summary from Entertainment Weekly which probably supports the online point:

And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams, tying with its Election Day coverage for the site’s top event (live stream tallies are typically not apples-to-apples with Nielsen’s strict methodology of counting average viewers, but are still additive). Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well.
Click to expand...
http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/

- And we'd never know it - because Spicer went running out of the room with his shorts on fire - but some version of this report is what Spicer was probably relying on. - The second most watched inaugural in 30 years (not the most ever) & the most including digital (and the digital age with decent streaming maybe began....5 years ago?).

 
Slapdash said:
Yes.  There are enough decent journalists at Fox left.  Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith namely.
Click to expand...
So it's 24/6 instead of 24/7? It's not going to matter to the Trumpers and GOP. I will say this: until the Fox crowd identifies the enemy - they had BO, Hillary, Biden - then they'll just flail wildly for a bit. They'll go after Hollywood and the Media for a few months.

 
jonessed said:
Joe Summer said:
It wasn't a tweet. It was a pool report that was issued to other reporters. All it said was "The MLK bust was no longer on display". The reporter wrote it because the bust was actually obscured by Secret Service agents and he honestly thought it was no longer on display. Once the Secret Service agents moved, he saw the bust and reported to the pool, "The MLK bust remains in the Oval Office".

This is what the Trump administration chooses to attack. No discrepancy is too small for them. It's all about creating distrust, confusion, and loyalty.
Click to expand...
The story spread to major news sites.
Click to expand...
Link? Looks like the pool reporter corrected the error in less than 10 minutes. The pool report was filed at 7:30 and the article at Time.com was posted at 7:40. I'm sure it was picked up by aggregators like HuffPo, but I can't find any evidence that the bust was mentioned in any other news stories.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Rove, here is a summary from Entertainment Weekly which probably supports the online point:

http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/

- And we'd never know it - because Spicer went running out of the room with his shorts on fire - but some version of this report is what Spicer was probably relying on. - The second most watched inaugural in 30 years (not the most ever) & the most including digital (and the digital age with decent streaming maybe began....5 years ago?).
Click to expand...
That's the thing.  They had the ammo to diffuse the already ridiculous criticism of the crowd levels, and instead they blew it up into a major controversy and told a few whoppers in the process.

Now wait until it's not about crowd levels, but it's about a massacre in some middle eastern country.

 
TobiasFunke said:
He also said he'd been on 14-15 Time covers, which he said he thought was a record.

Boy it sure would be a tragedy if he ever sees this.
Click to expand...
Oooof.

tim mentioned yesterday there was no way Trump had more Time covers than Nixon.  (He's right, BTW; Nixon has 55 Time covers) But the revelation that Trump doesn't even have the record among major party candidates for President in the 2016 election has gotta sting.  It shouldn't matter one tiny bit,  but there was Trump using his time in front of the CIA to talk about it.

 
Higgs said:
You may be surprised, but I like this post. You very well may be on to something here Henry with the loyalty test.  It's an interesting theory.
Click to expand...


Henry Ford said:
No, it's complimentary.  He's an intelligent, interested voter who voted for Trump and has reservations about his vote and who has issues with the media.  Who's he loyal to? The lying media, or Trump?  
Click to expand...


Garry Kasparov Verified account ‏@Kasparov63

Obvious lies serve a purpose for an administration. They watch who challenges them and who loyally repeats them. The people must watch, too.
Click to expand...
- Keep that in your back pocket.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did anyone else notice that Spicer seemed unfamiliar with several of the phrases that he kept repeating? ("sowing division", "false narratives", etc.)

"...and, and, false, uh....what does this say? Oh yeah, false narratives!"

 
Joe Summer said:
Saints:
 

Wallace: You talk about honesty. Well, two things Trump said yesterday were just flat wrong.

Wow. Day 1 and FoxNews is already calling him out.
Click to expand...
The media is fighting to survive.  It is ironic but every Trump tweet is pumping in life-giving blood.

 
Slapdash said:
You should read from these people that have spent time with him:  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/trump-biographers-presidency-legitimate-214655
Click to expand...
Great link.  My favorite parts:

—the consummate classroom troublemaker; a vain, insecure bully; and an anti-institutional schemer, as adept at “gaming the system” as he is unashamed. As they look ahead to his inauguration speech in two days, and to his administration beyond, they feel confident predicting that he will run the country much as he has run his company. For himself.

“He’s not going to be that concerned with the actual competent administration of the government,” D’Antonio said. “It’s going to be what he seems to be gaining or losing in public esteem. So almost like a monarch. The figurehead who rallies people and gets credit for things.”
Click to expand...


I agree with Gwenda that a lot of this has been in keeping with the same guy we’ve known for the last 20 years. But I don’t think we’re really going to know yet about the implications of anything that he’s doing until he has his team in place.
Click to expand...
In the above quote, I would expand the word "team" to be much broader than the cabinet positions.

Blair: There’s a fusion, I think, of his childhood, an emphasis on being combative, being killers—as his dad famously instructed his boys to be—but also, I think, his own competitive nature, and then his grasp in early adulthood that being a bully and really putting it to other people and not backing down often works. He also had his church background telling him that being a success was the most important thing and that got fused with the sort of ‘You want a crowd to show up, start a fight,’ P.T. Barnum-type thing early on in his career. And then Roy Cohn as a mentor, a guy who stood for cold-eye calculus about how bullying people works. And you put all of those pieces together, that he’s been doing this his whole life, and I don’t see a single reason for him to back down. He’s going to go full blast ahead with that.
Click to expand...


The Roy Cohn influence is one that I believe has had too little light...at least where I frequent.

O’Brien: His father and Roy Cohn, those are the two most singular influences on his whole life, and they provided him with a militarized, transactional view of human relationships, business dealings and the law. And he’s going to carry all of that stuff and all of that baggage with him into the White House.
Click to expand...



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

KarmaPolice
The Top 164 (166) Movies of the 21st Century. On to the TOP 10!!
37 38 39
Replies
2K
Views
46K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s
Judge Smails
  • Locked
So Cal Fires
12 13 14
Replies
690
Views
24K
FBG Moderator
F
Anarchy99
Obscure Records That You Think You May Hold
2
Replies
76
Views
2K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top