Author Topic: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?  (Read 9981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #60 on: January 21, 2017, 11:15:42 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30296
  • Tommy Points: -28272
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I think several of you are misinterpreting Spicer.

He said this was the largest "audience" to ever witness an inauguration, in person and around the globe. In other words, the TV audience was bigger.

Is that untrue?  His US ratings were behind Obama in 2009, but were second in the last 36 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more global viewers who tuned in, which is what the claim is.  That's without counting internet viewers.

My guess is that Spicer's "blatant lie" was in fact true.

The TV audience wasn't bigger in the US.  Maybe it was bigger in Russia?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315507-trump-inaugural-ratings-are-lower-than-obamas-and-reagans?amp

Right, but there's still the global and internet audience to be accounted for. My guess is that those are non-trivial numbers, Russia cracks or not.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2017, 11:36:37 PM »

Online saltlover

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7995
  • Tommy Points: 1269
I think several of you are misinterpreting Spicer.

He said this was the largest "audience" to ever witness an inauguration, in person and around the globe. In other words, the TV audience was bigger.

Is that untrue?  His US ratings were behind Obama in 2009, but were second in the last 36 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more global viewers who tuned in, which is what the claim is.  That's without counting internet viewers.

My guess is that Spicer's "blatant lie" was in fact true.

The TV audience wasn't bigger in the US.  Maybe it was bigger in Russia?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315507-trump-inaugural-ratings-are-lower-than-obamas-and-reagans?amp

Right, but there's still the global and internet audience to be accounted for. My guess is that those are non-trivial numbers, Russia cracks or not.

Spicer clearly said "both in person and around the globe."  The media and public is right to push back against Spicer for the "in-person" comment -- it simply wasn't.  As for "around the globe" -- it wasn't the most watched on TV in the US, and if, after already making an obviously false claim about in-person attendance, he wants to argue that so many millions more watched Trump globally than any other inauguration, the burden of proof is on him.  Until then, there's no reason to think he's doing anything other than making things up.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2017, 11:38:55 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30296
  • Tommy Points: -28272
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I think several of you are misinterpreting Spicer.

He said this was the largest "audience" to ever witness an inauguration, in person and around the globe. In other words, the TV audience was bigger.

Is that untrue?  His US ratings were behind Obama in 2009, but were second in the last 36 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more global viewers who tuned in, which is what the claim is.  That's without counting internet viewers.

My guess is that Spicer's "blatant lie" was in fact true.

The TV audience wasn't bigger in the US.  Maybe it was bigger in Russia?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315507-trump-inaugural-ratings-are-lower-than-obamas-and-reagans?amp

Right, but there's still the global and internet audience to be accounted for. My guess is that those are non-trivial numbers, Russia cracks or not.

Spicer clearly said "both in person and around the globe."  The media and public is right to push back against Spicer for the "in-person" comment -- it simply wasn't.  As for "around the globe" -- it wasn't the most watched on TV in the US, and if, after already making an obviously false claim about in-person attendance, he wants to argue that so many millions more watched Trump globally than any other inauguration, the burden of proof is on him.  Until then, there's no reason to think he's doing anything other than making things up.

He pretty clearly meant total audience, combining in-person and other forms of viewership.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2017, 11:53:08 PM »

Offline Evantime34

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11480
  • Tommy Points: 708
  • Eagerly Awaiting the Next Fantasy Draft
I think several of you are misinterpreting Spicer.

He said this was the largest "audience" to ever witness an inauguration, in person and around the globe. In other words, the TV audience was bigger.

Is that untrue?  His US ratings were behind Obama in 2009, but were second in the last 36 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more global viewers who tuned in, which is what the claim is.  That's without counting internet viewers.

My guess is that Spicer's "blatant lie" was in fact true.

The TV audience wasn't bigger in the US.  Maybe it was bigger in Russia?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315507-trump-inaugural-ratings-are-lower-than-obamas-and-reagans?amp

Right, but there's still the global and internet audience to be accounted for. My guess is that those are non-trivial numbers, Russia cracks or not.

Spicer clearly said "both in person and around the globe."  The media and public is right to push back against Spicer for the "in-person" comment -- it simply wasn't.  As for "around the globe" -- it wasn't the most watched on TV in the US, and if, after already making an obviously false claim about in-person attendance, he wants to argue that so many millions more watched Trump globally than any other inauguration, the burden of proof is on him.  Until then, there's no reason to think he's doing anything other than making things up.

He pretty clearly meant total audience, combining in-person and other forms of viewership.
Did you watch his whole press conference or just see that one line? He came out and yelled at the media for "under reporting" the audience. He essentially said that those showing the side by side pictures of his inauguration and Obama's were being dishonest. He took the media to task for reporting the truth.
DKC:  Rockets
CB Draft: Memphis Grizz
Players: Klay Thompson, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon
Next 3 picks: 4.14, 4.15, 4.19

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #64 on: January 21, 2017, 11:56:13 PM »

Online saltlover

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7995
  • Tommy Points: 1269
I think several of you are misinterpreting Spicer.

He said this was the largest "audience" to ever witness an inauguration, in person and around the globe. In other words, the TV audience was bigger.

Is that untrue?  His US ratings were behind Obama in 2009, but were second in the last 36 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more global viewers who tuned in, which is what the claim is.  That's without counting internet viewers.

My guess is that Spicer's "blatant lie" was in fact true.

The TV audience wasn't bigger in the US.  Maybe it was bigger in Russia?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315507-trump-inaugural-ratings-are-lower-than-obamas-and-reagans?amp

Right, but there's still the global and internet audience to be accounted for. My guess is that those are non-trivial numbers, Russia cracks or not.

Spicer clearly said "both in person and around the globe."  The media and public is right to push back against Spicer for the "in-person" comment -- it simply wasn't.  As for "around the globe" -- it wasn't the most watched on TV in the US, and if, after already making an obviously false claim about in-person attendance, he wants to argue that so many millions more watched Trump globally than any other inauguration, the burden of proof is on him.  Until then, there's no reason to think he's doing anything other than making things up.

He pretty clearly meant total audience, combining in-person and other forms of viewership.

I think that is up for debate at best, considering he made several distinct points about Metro ridership, camera angles, security procedures, and matting put on the grass at the mall (all of which were false) but what is not up for debate is that there is no evidence to support even his global claim, aside from the fact that there are simply more people in the world (which he did not cite.)

Getting back to the subject of this thread, how is the media going to handle outright lies, here is CNN's first entry into the field:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2017, 11:57:41 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30296
  • Tommy Points: -28272
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I think several of you are misinterpreting Spicer.

He said this was the largest "audience" to ever witness an inauguration, in person and around the globe. In other words, the TV audience was bigger.

Is that untrue?  His US ratings were behind Obama in 2009, but were second in the last 36 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more global viewers who tuned in, which is what the claim is.  That's without counting internet viewers.

My guess is that Spicer's "blatant lie" was in fact true.

The TV audience wasn't bigger in the US.  Maybe it was bigger in Russia?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315507-trump-inaugural-ratings-are-lower-than-obamas-and-reagans?amp

Right, but there's still the global and internet audience to be accounted for. My guess is that those are non-trivial numbers, Russia cracks or not.

Spicer clearly said "both in person and around the globe."  The media and public is right to push back against Spicer for the "in-person" comment -- it simply wasn't.  As for "around the globe" -- it wasn't the most watched on TV in the US, and if, after already making an obviously false claim about in-person attendance, he wants to argue that so many millions more watched Trump globally than any other inauguration, the burden of proof is on him.  Until then, there's no reason to think he's doing anything other than making things up.

He pretty clearly meant total audience, combining in-person and other forms of viewership.
Did you watch his whole press conference or just see that one line? He came out and yelled at the media for "under reporting" the audience. He essentially said that those showing the side by side pictures of his inauguration and Obama's were being dishonest. He took the media to task for reporting the truth.

I watched the whole thing. Regardless of the rest of the press conference, Spicer didn't say the in-person audience was the largest ever, which is what many are saying.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #66 on: January 22, 2017, 12:09:55 AM »

Online saltlover

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7995
  • Tommy Points: 1269
I think several of you are misinterpreting Spicer.

He said this was the largest "audience" to ever witness an inauguration, in person and around the globe. In other words, the TV audience was bigger.

Is that untrue?  His US ratings were behind Obama in 2009, but were second in the last 36 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more global viewers who tuned in, which is what the claim is.  That's without counting internet viewers.

My guess is that Spicer's "blatant lie" was in fact true.

The TV audience wasn't bigger in the US.  Maybe it was bigger in Russia?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315507-trump-inaugural-ratings-are-lower-than-obamas-and-reagans?amp

Right, but there's still the global and internet audience to be accounted for. My guess is that those are non-trivial numbers, Russia cracks or not.

Spicer clearly said "both in person and around the globe."  The media and public is right to push back against Spicer for the "in-person" comment -- it simply wasn't.  As for "around the globe" -- it wasn't the most watched on TV in the US, and if, after already making an obviously false claim about in-person attendance, he wants to argue that so many millions more watched Trump globally than any other inauguration, the burden of proof is on him.  Until then, there's no reason to think he's doing anything other than making things up.

He pretty clearly meant total audience, combining in-person and other forms of viewership.
Did you watch his whole press conference or just see that one line? He came out and yelled at the media for "under reporting" the audience. He essentially said that those showing the side by side pictures of his inauguration and Obama's were being dishonest. He took the media to task for reporting the truth.

I watched the whole thing. Regardless of the rest of the press conference, Spicer didn't say the in-person audience was the largest ever, which is what many are saying.

Yes, he did.

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/21/sean-spicer-held-a-press-conference-he-didnt-take-questions-or-tell-the-whole-truth/?hpid=hp_rhp-bignews4_fix-spicer-1110pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.820065c843ee

You don't say "Isaiah Thomas is both 6 feet tall and on the Celtics" and say your statement is correct because Isaiah Thomas is on the Celtics.  That's not what "both... and" means in English.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #67 on: January 22, 2017, 01:13:25 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30296
  • Tommy Points: -28272
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I think several of you are misinterpreting Spicer.

He said this was the largest "audience" to ever witness an inauguration, in person and around the globe. In other words, the TV audience was bigger.

Is that untrue?  His US ratings were behind Obama in 2009, but were second in the last 36 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more global viewers who tuned in, which is what the claim is.  That's without counting internet viewers.

My guess is that Spicer's "blatant lie" was in fact true.

The TV audience wasn't bigger in the US.  Maybe it was bigger in Russia?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315507-trump-inaugural-ratings-are-lower-than-obamas-and-reagans?amp

Right, but there's still the global and internet audience to be accounted for. My guess is that those are non-trivial numbers, Russia cracks or not.

Spicer clearly said "both in person and around the globe."  The media and public is right to push back against Spicer for the "in-person" comment -- it simply wasn't.  As for "around the globe" -- it wasn't the most watched on TV in the US, and if, after already making an obviously false claim about in-person attendance, he wants to argue that so many millions more watched Trump globally than any other inauguration, the burden of proof is on him.  Until then, there's no reason to think he's doing anything other than making things up.

He pretty clearly meant total audience, combining in-person and other forms of viewership.
Did you watch his whole press conference or just see that one line? He came out and yelled at the media for "under reporting" the audience. He essentially said that those showing the side by side pictures of his inauguration and Obama's were being dishonest. He took the media to task for reporting the truth.

I watched the whole thing. Regardless of the rest of the press conference, Spicer didn't say the in-person audience was the largest ever, which is what many are saying.

Yes, he did.

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/21/sean-spicer-held-a-press-conference-he-didnt-take-questions-or-tell-the-whole-truth/?hpid=hp_rhp-bignews4_fix-spicer-1110pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.820065c843ee

You don't say "Isaiah Thomas is both 6 feet tall and on the Celtics" and say your statement is correct because Isaiah Thomas is on the Celtics.  That's not what "both... and" means in English.

You're ignoring context. The audience he was referencing was "both" - as in combined - in person plus worldwide.

It's like saying "The Celtics have the shortest starting backcourt duo, period, with both Avery Bradley and IT".


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #68 on: January 22, 2017, 01:20:23 AM »

Offline trickybilly

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2261
  • Tommy Points: 174
I think several of you are misinterpreting Spicer.

He said this was the largest "audience" to ever witness an inauguration, in person and around the globe. In other words, the TV audience was bigger.

Is that untrue?  His US ratings were behind Obama in 2009, but were second in the last 36 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more global viewers who tuned in, which is what the claim is.  That's without counting internet viewers.

My guess is that Spicer's "blatant lie" was in fact true.

The TV audience wasn't bigger in the US.  Maybe it was bigger in Russia?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315507-trump-inaugural-ratings-are-lower-than-obamas-and-reagans?amp

Right, but there's still the global and internet audience to be accounted for. My guess is that those are non-trivial numbers, Russia cracks or not.

Spicer clearly said "both in person and around the globe."  The media and public is right to push back against Spicer for the "in-person" comment -- it simply wasn't.  As for "around the globe" -- it wasn't the most watched on TV in the US, and if, after already making an obviously false claim about in-person attendance, he wants to argue that so many millions more watched Trump globally than any other inauguration, the burden of proof is on him.  Until then, there's no reason to think he's doing anything other than making things up.

He pretty clearly meant total audience, combining in-person and other forms of viewership.
Did you watch his whole press conference or just see that one line? He came out and yelled at the media for "under reporting" the audience. He essentially said that those showing the side by side pictures of his inauguration and Obama's were being dishonest. He took the media to task for reporting the truth.

I watched the whole thing. Regardless of the rest of the press conference, Spicer didn't say the in-person audience was the largest ever, which is what many are saying.

Yes, he did.

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/21/sean-spicer-held-a-press-conference-he-didnt-take-questions-or-tell-the-whole-truth/?hpid=hp_rhp-bignews4_fix-spicer-1110pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.820065c843ee

You don't say "Isaiah Thomas is both 6 feet tall and on the Celtics" and say your statement is correct because Isaiah Thomas is on the Celtics.  That's not what "both... and" means in English.

You're ignoring context. The audience he was referencing was "both" - as in combined - in person plus worldwide.

It's like saying "The Celtics have the shortest starting backcourt duo, period, with both Avery Bradley and IT".

"and" and "plus" are two very different words. The implication is clear.

The point is though, that we won't actually be able to ever get a clarification. Like Kellyanne, they will just pivot away from clarifying - so we are all left arguing about semantics and distracted from what is going on.
This is where the rubber hits the road

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #69 on: January 22, 2017, 01:32:55 AM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4395
  • Tommy Points: 446
So, are people going to have to bring up stuff like President Obama saying "If you like your plan, you can keep it" or any of the other billion or so times other Presidents and other political figures lied their behinds off?  Or how about the New York Times running a BS story about Rick Perry not knowing the Energy Department handled nuclear weapons and refusing to retract it even after video turned up of Perry specifically taking about that, or that as the Governor of Texas he would have been very familiar with a federal nuclear facility in that state?  Or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman?"

Spicer's statement can obviously be interpreted in different ways.  Fighting a death match to insist that it should only be interpreted in such a way as to prove the Trump Administration told a relatively unimportant fib seems kind of ridiculous.

Mike

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #70 on: January 22, 2017, 02:16:37 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8850
  • Tommy Points: 968
So, are people going to have to bring up stuff like President Obama saying "If you like your plan, you can keep it" or any of the other billion or so times other Presidents and other political figures lied their behinds off?


This one lie has angered me more than any other. It has cost me, and millions of other Americans more money in insurance premiums than is even imaginable. And less coverage as well. Like within months of the announcement it was going through the company I was working with announced huge insurance premium increases.

Obamacare is the biggest piece of garbage legislation ever. Totally effed millions of lower middle class working Americans.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #71 on: January 22, 2017, 02:22:57 AM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1060
  • Tommy Points: 159
Second day in office and Trump's press secretary is starting feuds with the press over this nonsense?

It is bizarre and worrying, not to mention embarrassing. If Trump can't handle minor "slights" like this, then I have a hard time believing he'll be able to handle more serious problems.

I can't envision any other President engaging in this type of grade-school attack. Just pathetic.

The next four years are going to be a long, painful lesson for America, though I doubt most of his supporters will be able to put their egos aside and admit they were wrong.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #72 on: January 22, 2017, 02:44:55 AM »

Online saltlover

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7995
  • Tommy Points: 1269
I think several of you are misinterpreting Spicer.

He said this was the largest "audience" to ever witness an inauguration, in person and around the globe. In other words, the TV audience was bigger.

Is that untrue?  His US ratings were behind Obama in 2009, but were second in the last 36 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more global viewers who tuned in, which is what the claim is.  That's without counting internet viewers.

My guess is that Spicer's "blatant lie" was in fact true.

The TV audience wasn't bigger in the US.  Maybe it was bigger in Russia?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315507-trump-inaugural-ratings-are-lower-than-obamas-and-reagans?amp

Right, but there's still the global and internet audience to be accounted for. My guess is that those are non-trivial numbers, Russia cracks or not.

Spicer clearly said "both in person and around the globe."  The media and public is right to push back against Spicer for the "in-person" comment -- it simply wasn't.  As for "around the globe" -- it wasn't the most watched on TV in the US, and if, after already making an obviously false claim about in-person attendance, he wants to argue that so many millions more watched Trump globally than any other inauguration, the burden of proof is on him.  Until then, there's no reason to think he's doing anything other than making things up.

He pretty clearly meant total audience, combining in-person and other forms of viewership.
Did you watch his whole press conference or just see that one line? He came out and yelled at the media for "under reporting" the audience. He essentially said that those showing the side by side pictures of his inauguration and Obama's were being dishonest. He took the media to task for reporting the truth.

I watched the whole thing. Regardless of the rest of the press conference, Spicer didn't say the in-person audience was the largest ever, which is what many are saying.

Yes, he did.

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/21/sean-spicer-held-a-press-conference-he-didnt-take-questions-or-tell-the-whole-truth/?hpid=hp_rhp-bignews4_fix-spicer-1110pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.820065c843ee

You don't say "Isaiah Thomas is both 6 feet tall and on the Celtics" and say your statement is correct because Isaiah Thomas is on the Celtics.  That's not what "both... and" means in English.

You're ignoring context. The audience he was referencing was "both" - as in combined - in person plus worldwide.

It's like saying "The Celtics have the shortest starting backcourt duo, period, with both Avery Bradley and IT".

No, I am not ignoring context.  The only time he mentioned anything to do with "worldwide" in that entire press "conference" was in that one sentence I gave you.  The preceding four sentences were all about the in-person crowd.  The following sentence was about the crowd.  Six other sentences were about the crowd.  If he wanted to say "combined", he would have said it.  This was a prepared statement, not some off-the-cuff remark.  There is nothing in context that remotely suggests he meant "combined."  It was "the biggest in-person crowd, period.  Oh, and while we're talking about how big and great we are, the biggest audience worldwide, too."

The administration is trying to pretend that they have the most support in US history.  This was not an accidental flub, or a question of misinterpretation.  They want people to think that Trump's popular support is historic.  And that's why it's important to push back against this statement.

It's up to you if on day 1 you want to let them blatantly make up facts and attempt to interpret their statements in the most favorable way possible (and again, I will note, that there is currently no evidence that even the generous interpretation you want to allow them is true either).  I know you're too smart to be snowed by them, Roy, so don't let them off the hook so easily.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 03:04:25 AM by saltlover »

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #73 on: January 22, 2017, 02:48:42 AM »

Online saltlover

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7995
  • Tommy Points: 1269
Second day in office and Trump's press secretary is starting feuds with the press over this nonsense?

It is bizarre and worrying, not to mention embarrassing. If Trump can't handle minor "slights" like this, then I have a hard time believing he'll be able to handle more serious problems.

I can't envision any other President engaging in this type of grade-school attack. Just pathetic.

The next four years are going to be a long, painful lesson for America, though I doubt most of his supporters will be able to put their egos aside and admit they were wrong.

It's not about slights.  It's about trying to pretend that Trump has historic levels of support (which he does, but not in a positive sense.)  It is anything but being petty, because the goal is to keep pretending until it's accepted as fact.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #74 on: January 22, 2017, 05:36:09 AM »

Offline chambers

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6973
  • Tommy Points: 861
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
Is there any actual proven number of inauguration crowd
numbers/ attendees ?
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.