sleeper;1833847 wrote:You can also pull up the comparison for the pre-inauguration concerts. No one showed up to Trump's and you literally could not get into Obama's.

But you won't hear that from the Ministry of Truth for the next 4 years. 2020 can't come soon enough.

Spock;1833848 wrote:who did show up were sold out pre election events where the people of the US came out for Trump and Clinton had to doctor photos cause she had 10-20 people show up to hers. Who cares if the DC elite don't come to see Trump at anything. He is in the WH today making things happen.

queencitybuckeye;1833851 wrote:I have no idea why the administration is trying to deny obvious facts instead of telling the truth, that the relative attendance at this inauguration vs. that one is completely irrelevant. It's like having the argument that my team, even though they lost by 20, was better than your team because our side had more yards. Who gives a shit?

gut;1833852 wrote:How long before Hannity replaces Spicer as WH Spokesperson?

queencitybuckeye;1833851 wrote:I have no idea why the administration is trying to deny obvious facts instead of telling the truth, that the relative attendance at this inauguration vs. that one is completely irrelevant. It's like having the argument that my team, even though they lost by 20, was better than your team because our side had more yards. Who gives a shit?

sleeper;1833857 wrote: This is literally what happened in Germany in the late 1930's. Control the media, control the country. The 1st amendment is in serious jeopardy.

queencitybuckeye;1833851 wrote:I have no idea why the administration is trying to deny obvious facts instead of telling the truth, that the relative attendance at this inauguration vs. that one is completely irrelevant. It's like having the argument that my team, even though they lost by 20, was better than your team because our side had more yards. Who gives a shit?

fish82;1833863 wrote:Spicer did a slightly better job today when a reporter brought up the previous exchange. He stressed that his statement was that it was the most "viewed" inauguration in history, which is probably technically true.

He still has a long way to go to fully recover though.

fish82;1833863 wrote:Spicer did a slightly better job today when a reporter brought up the previous exchange. He stressed that his statement was that it was the most "viewed" inauguration in history, which is probably technically true.

He still has a long way to go to fully recover though.

wildcats20;1833866 wrote:It's not. And it's not even close.

queencitybuckeye;1833870 wrote:Wouldn't the plain truth be better?

SportsAndLady;1833880 wrote:https://medium.com/@dinachka82/about-your-poem-1f26a7585a6f#.oo1ppoju8

I don't want to live in a world where that article is being passed around social media and applauded. What a joke of an article.

sleeper;1833857 wrote:Not to mention he said the CIA gave him a 5 minute long standing ovation after his speech. LOL

This is literally what happened in Germany in the late 1930's. Control the media, control the country. The 1st amendment is in serious jeopardy.

fish82;1833882 wrote:The plain truth is that it was likely the most viewed Inauguration ever.

queencitybuckeye;1833899 wrote:Perhaps, but the more important truth is that wasn't really the claim. They lied, and should own it.

fish82;1833881 wrote:You're confusing viewership with attendance.

fish82;1833882 wrote:The plain truth is that it was likely the most viewed Inauguration ever.

Spock;1833888 wrote:Are you blind or stupid. The WH under Obama lies to us through the media on a daily basis. I bet you were upset.

SportsAndLady;1833880 wrote:https://medium.com/@dinachka82/about-your-poem-1f26a7585a6f#.oo1ppoju8

I don't want to live in a world where that article is being passed around social media and applauded. What a joke of an article.

sleeper;1833918 wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-ratings-idUSKBN15600S

38 million for Obama, 31 million for Trump.

Saturday was the 2nd highest day of Metro ridership ever behind Obama's first inauguration.

Sorry, he lied. Credibility dead.

queencitybuckeye;1833899 wrote:Perhaps, but the more important truth is that wasn't really the claim. They lied, and should own it.

fish82;1833935 wrote:When anyone in DC starts owning their lies, it'll be a good day.

The bottom line in the current climate is that he did a decent job "clarifying" his remarks yesterday. Again, I've stipulated that his performance on Saturday was a disaster and an embarrassment. Even going down the road of attendance/viewership was silly. That said, it doesn't change the fact that the statement he's getting hammered for was, at the end of the day, factually correct.

queencitybuckeye;1833936 wrote:At the end of the day, it was 100% a self-inflicted wound. The professionals in this case followed the lead of their boss, to all of their detriment. Facts notwithstanding, they looked like idiots because they acted and spoke as idiots. The correct answer was a polished version of "who cares" combined with "scoreboard, bitches".