The claim that Spicer made about the "most watched inauguration ever"...or something to that effect.
PRESIDENT TRUMP
- Thread starter UNC71-00
- Start date
The claim that Spicer made about the "most watched inauguration ever"...or something to that effect.
Wait... you're telling me that you actually buy that line? You're going to assume he's including "viewership" in all forms to claim it was the most-viewed inauguration in history?
So, every time we see a picture of it somewhere, that counts as "one more viewer" for his inauguration?
I didn't say that I buy the line, but I certainly do not buy the media's claim that it's untrue. The truth here is that neither side can be verified - both sides could be right / wrong. There's no way to prove it either way.
But you cannot convince me that there is not a direct correlation between the increase in streaming options for the NFL and the sudden decline in ratings. Those viewers just stopped paying for cable / satellite. Ignoring that as being the reason is just being blind to the tech world.
Exactly correct. I'm assuming this is why the term "alternative facts" was used. Yes, the MSM fact of lower attendance and lower cable viewership is correct. The Spicer fact of overall viewership being up (due to streaming and other mediums) may well be correct too. Thus, it is an "alternative fact" as in, another fact about the same thing that is also true. Washington Post and Huffington Post have run with the "Alternative Facts" term and presented it as a synonym for "lies", because that's what they do. And the Trump haters have taken that and run with it without looking into it, because that's what they do too.
I'm not talking about the NFL. I couldn't care less about the NFL. It's up to the NFL to believe whatever they want as to why their product is declining.
I'm talking about how simply having working eyes and being able to count constitutes for a recognition of reality. Then... going to the length of denying that what you're seeing is real in order to delude yourself and others that what THEY are seeing is, in fact, real. Now, I am always fascinated, and sometimes encouraged, by the human mind's ability to broaden its vistas and gather and/or interpret new realities. But, something as simple as seeing a stadium half-full and seeing it empty, and telling yourself that the same number of people are in attendance is just denial... it's a lie, in my understanding.
Because I was referring to the comment about TV viewership, which makes the NFL's ratings conversation very relevant to this topic. For the sake of being civil, I'm going to stop here so as to keep the peace.
Dude....what?!?!?! I have never in my life seen someone so articulate have the inability to make a coherent comment. I'm done. Enjoy having the last word.
Makes perfect sense that attendance would have been down. We have had 44 white male presidents. BO was the first black male president. It was a historic occasion. Just wait till President Ivanka Trump 46 in 2024-25 is elected. DC won't hold all the people.
That counts as another viewer to Trump's inauguration. Every time we see this picture, his viewership number goes up. Obama's doesn't count because it is being used as the comparison.Pictures usually are pretty accurate, just saying
I'm in awe at how far these Trump butt-licks will go to bullshit themselves. The upside to this is; Now, I am finally realizing how legions of people can allow atrocities to occur right in front of their faces and feel no remorse. Just lie to yourself. Cling to "alternative facts" and you get the opposite of whatever reality you encounter. Or, at the very least, you drown-out the less-appealing reality that's actually happening.
I hope doctors don't use too many alternative facts when they look at MRI results.
We're becoming a race of lawyers... really deceptive, unhinged lawyers that lack any sort of conscience.
This whole argument is dumb. The fact that the press brought it up and Trump's team kept it going shows how mixed up priorities are for the media and politicians. How about we worry about something that matters.
I've realized what many on here have -- give it a rest. You're wasting your time with this guy.
FWIW, I've felt for a year now that Ivanka is setting herself up for a run when her dad's tenure is up. And I would be 100% in favor of her taking over.
There's no argument at all.
Trump's inauguration had fewer people in attendance than Obama's. It's nothing to be ashamed of. But, this insecure child you elected has a hissy-fit when anything is smaller than his, and people find out about it.
Wait till he hears about Chick's BFs shoe size
It sure will be nice to flip the sexism card in that race. Anyone who doesn't like Ivanka's policies is a misogynist, sexist, asshole. I can save a lot of time in that race by not needing to know the facts, and to simply retort her opponents with claims of them just not understanding women.
Although then I assume the Dems will see the possibility there, and will have Michelle Obama run, so that then they hold the "trump" card (punny) in that they can then accuse her opposition of being sexist and racist! If the GOP trots a black woman out there - then they'll come up with a black woman who is also handicapped! I think the Dems would win that arms race.
What if they do? What if one doctor says "this MCL is torn", and that's a fact. The guy gets a second opinion and the second doctor says "this knee can still support your weight while walking, but not while running" and that is a separate fact, even though the MCL is indeed torn. These would be alternative facts.
The irony of this with the rest of your poast is quite impressive.
An argument is "an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one." What is going on is the very definition of an argument.
I had absolutely nothing to do with electing him.
You just summed up my thoughts exactly. I need to learn to be more concise.
He needs to think that, so it fits his narrative that everyone on the board except for him and chick are a bunch of conservative republicans.
Your cynicism is off the charts, dude.
THAT is absolutely right! This is a collective choice.
I said I'm amazed at how people are able to create their realities. If you see more people in attendance at the Mall than what you see in attendance at the Obama inauguration then your reality is an alternative to mine.
Hey... we're making progress! I feel better!
Trump is not a conservative republican.
You're right, but you have repeatedly claimed that almost everyone on this board is.
Well, guys you can be happy about this... Looks like Trump's crowd beat the Bush inauguration crowd, so there's that.
Well, are you in doubt that this board has a heavy list to starboard? I'm sure there are alternative facts that would prove otherwise.
I'll go with everything is relative. That rests better than "alternative facts", on my conscience at least.
Yes, I'm in doubt that there is a heavy list. I'm in no doubt that you have convinced yourself that there is though. The fact that you think I voted for Trump supports that.
See this is where you start to veer off course. I don't think anyone has said they see more people in the picture poasted of Trump's inauguration than in the one of Obama's. If they do, they're insane (or at least terrible at counting/estimating). There's many more people in the Obama picture, that is a fact. However an "alternative fact" may be that the Obama picture was taken at noon, and the Trump one at 7am. Or another "alternative fact" might be that even though many more people were in person for Obama, that technology has advanced since then, and there were enough people streaming the event to make it more watched in total than the Obama one. It's possible these facts are just as true.
The Prez is not gonna let's go . .
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-inauguration-photo-press-234113
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-inauguration-photo-press-234113
Perhaps you're correct on both but IF we can trust time stamps on photos then the photos were taken in the same time frame.
Streaming could be one reason, another could be fear of something bad going down (riots) or perhaps there were many who half assed supported him and were too ashamed to show THAT MUCH support. Who the hell knows? Regardless, we are in for a bumpy ride so get ready.
Let me see if I can make some sense of this nonsensical discussion.
Sean Spicer made several statements during the press conference. The first one being called into question is this: "[P]hotographs of the inaugural proceedings were intentionally framed in a way, in one particular tweet, to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall." That's an absolute lie. Both photos were taken 45 minutes before the respective oaths of office were taken. The authenticity of the crowd attendance can also be confirmed in a time-lapse video of the event, where you can see people leaving in the last seconds of the video, i.e. it shows the crowd at its maximum size.
The other thing Spicer said was, "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe." The Neilsen numbers show that there were an estimated 30.6 million TV viewers compared to the record of 41.8 million for Reagan's first inauguration. That doesn't count streaming viewers. The same article cites CNN as having 3.2 million concurrent viewers as its peak, also noting that CNN has the largest online audience. So were there enough online viewers to close the 11.2 million gap to eclipse Reagan? That's probably unknowable, so Spicer definitively saying "period" was kind of silly.
Finally, Kellyanne Conway was getting drilled in a live interview where Chuck Todd was making a wholesale criticism of multiple statements made by Spicer. If he wanted to address the actual facts, he should have taken one statement at a time rather than conflating the issue. Yes, her uttering the phrase "alternative facts" was pretty stupid, but we love to latch on to stupid things public figures say, like when Obama said there are 58 states. What she probably meant was that they were basing their press conference statement off different sources of information than what had been presented in the media. An alternative SET of facts, if you will.
That said, I find it deeply troubling but not surprising that the entire press conference was spent arguing over something so asinine. It was a pitiful attempt to frame Trump in the most favorable light possible, but for what purpose? Terrible precedent for the administration.
Sean Spicer made several statements during the press conference. The first one being called into question is this: "[P]hotographs of the inaugural proceedings were intentionally framed in a way, in one particular tweet, to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall." That's an absolute lie. Both photos were taken 45 minutes before the respective oaths of office were taken. The authenticity of the crowd attendance can also be confirmed in a time-lapse video of the event, where you can see people leaving in the last seconds of the video, i.e. it shows the crowd at its maximum size.
The other thing Spicer said was, "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe." The Neilsen numbers show that there were an estimated 30.6 million TV viewers compared to the record of 41.8 million for Reagan's first inauguration. That doesn't count streaming viewers. The same article cites CNN as having 3.2 million concurrent viewers as its peak, also noting that CNN has the largest online audience. So were there enough online viewers to close the 11.2 million gap to eclipse Reagan? That's probably unknowable, so Spicer definitively saying "period" was kind of silly.
Finally, Kellyanne Conway was getting drilled in a live interview where Chuck Todd was making a wholesale criticism of multiple statements made by Spicer. If he wanted to address the actual facts, he should have taken one statement at a time rather than conflating the issue. Yes, her uttering the phrase "alternative facts" was pretty stupid, but we love to latch on to stupid things public figures say, like when Obama said there are 58 states. What she probably meant was that they were basing their press conference statement off different sources of information than what had been presented in the media. An alternative SET of facts, if you will.
That said, I find it deeply troubling but not surprising that the entire press conference was spent arguing over something so asinine. It was a pitiful attempt to frame Trump in the most favorable light possible, but for what purpose? Terrible precedent for the administration.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
-
THI Podcast: The Football Show | Observations 2 Months into Belichick Era- Latest: andrew jones
-
THI Podcast: The Football Show | Observations 2 Months into Belichick Era
- Latest: andrew jones
-
