does anybody believe what Spicer said about crowd sizes? (middle east, illegal, economy)

[Icy Tea]

So we're talking about crowd envy now? A few things. When Obama was sworn in they bussed people from all over and DC had a huge black population so of course they were going to be there to watch an historic event taking place. If the POTUS being sworn in was black but not Obama, the crowd would have been just as big. They also suffered for the day, mother nature served up a day as cold as possible.
Trump had his supporters and the crowd was a good turnout given the less friendly logistics of the area. And Obama's second swearing in was way less than it was the first time, the novelty must have worn off. Plus he pissed away four years and the country was at a standstill.
Had Hillary been inaugurated they'd have bussed women and girls in from all over to see that historic( and tragic) event.

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by hooligan

No, it doesn't refer to them as a singular entity when you break them out separately in the 2nd sentence by saying BOTH.

Wrong. The "both" refers to the mode of communication -- in person at the event, and through the media for those not at the event.

That communicates the fact that BOTH metrics are the largest for their specific measurement. I'm done arguing this with you.

I would hope so. You've lost the argument.

Lots of people who earn a living communicating via writing/speaking in the English language interpret those statements exactly as I do.

Oh, wait. You're still arguing. What "lots of people do" has no bearing on the issue. These "professionals" probably know better, but it's not their intent to be truthful.

So, at the very least, it was poor wording on Spicer's part.

No, it isn't. His statement as it stands clearly refers to a single audience, with part of it watching Trump's inauguration in person and part of it watching on TV and the internet.

The bigger point is that there are so many more important things to talk about that Spicer spending any time addressing this, at all, is a bad look.

I see nothing wrong with him talking about it. I suppose you're now going to tell us that he also shouldn't have talked about the Time reporter's false claim that the bust of MLK had been removed from the oval office.

I won't even start with KellyAnn's "alternative facts" comment.

Good.

[dechatelet]

Latest figures I've seen: Trump's inauguration was watched by 30 million TV viewers and at least 16 million people live-streaming. That doesn't count the number of people there in person.

So at least 46 million people watched Trump's inauguration -- more than any other inauguration, including Obama and Reagan.

Spicer was right all along.

As for "alternative facts," that just referred to the figures Conway was provided by DC metro, etc. They turned out to be incorrect, but that's not Conway's fault.

To say that she and Spicer were lying is itself a lie.

The only liar that day was the lying liberal Time reporter who falsely claimed that the bust of MLK had been removed from the oval office.

[saturno_v]

I have no doubt that Obama inauguration crowd was bigger, much bigger....after all it was an historical event, all the "change" promises, the country was in the middle of the great recession and, do not get upset my dear liberal friends, but Democrats leaning voters tend to have more time on their hands then GOP voters. Weather difference, protesters blocking access and extra security may have been additional factors as well.
Finally DC and the surrounding areas are solidly democrat so there is an "in house" advantage.


However, the initial crowd size pic blasted on the MSM was clearly misleading.....I mean this one.




Ironically CNN itself debunked the famous crowd picture comparison...this is their gigapixel image at the moment of Trump oath.....as you can see, the crowd is clearly much bigger than the infamous comparison image, not white spaces left....so if Reuters said that picture was taken at noon, things do not add up, someone is lying in the middle...the crowd for Trump goes indeed all the way up to the Washington monument.



Here is the link to the CNN where you can pan it and zoom it yourself.

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

Another shot (unknown time when it was taken) from the Capitol perspective




Initially I was fairly disappointed that Trump decided to address such a trivial topic like crowd size....I still think that he should have kept his mouth shut however, after looking at the CNN Gigapixel image, I can understand a bit better his frustration (compounded by the MLK bust removal fake new).

I also listened to the Spicer short press conference.....he said, I quote, "...this was a the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration period....both in person and around the globe".

To me this statement can be a bit ambiguous...it may mean that is was the largest in person and the largest via TV/Streaming or the two combined.... the first instance is clearly not the case, the second it may be (I do not know the figures).

I think Kellyanne Conway expression "alternate facts" was, unfortunately, wrongly worded, I think she meant to say providing different figures compared to what the media provided/assumed.

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by saturno_v

I have no doubt that Obama inauguration crowd was bigger, much bigger....after all it was an historical event, all the "change" promises, the country was in the middle of the great recession and, do not get upset my dear liberal friends, but Democrats leaning voters tend to have more time on their hand then GOP voters. Weather difference, protesters blocking access and extra security may have been additional factors as well.
Finally DC and the surrounding areas are solidly democrat so there is an "in house" advantage.


However, the initial crowd size pic blasted on the MSM was clearly misleading.....I mean this one.




Ironically CNN itself debunked the famous crowd picture comparison...this is their gigapixel image at the moment of Trump oath.....as you can see, the crowd is clearly much bigger than the infamous comparison image, not white spaces left....so if Reuters said that picture was taken at noon, things do not add up, someone is lying in the middle...the crowd for Trump goes indeed all the way up to the Washington monument.



Here is the link to the CNN where you can pan it and zoom it yourself.

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

Another shot (unknown time when it was taken) from the Capitol perspective




Initially I was fairly disappointed that Trump decided to address such a trivial topic like crowd size....I still think that he should have kept his mouth shut however, after looking at the CNN Gigapixel image, I can understand a bit better his frustration (compounded by the MLK bust removal fake new).

I also listened to the Spicer short press conference.....he said, I quote, "...this was a the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration period....both in person and around the globe".

To me this statement can be a bit ambiguous...it may mean that is was the largest in person and the largest via TV/Streaming or the two combined.... the first instance is clearly not the case, the second it may be (I do not know the figures).

I think Kellyanne Conway expression "alternate facts" was wrongly worded, I think she meant to say providing different figures compared to what the media provided/assumed.

Excellent post.

[staywarm2]

Originally Posted by johnp292

It's about ego.

Every single day he's in office, the priority will be to keep his ego inflated. Any day that is not accomplished is a failure.

Also, Trump thinks he has to be a "winner." He can't stand the thought of losing at anything. I would sure like to hear a psychiatrist's evaluation of this guy.

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by dechatelet

Wrong. The "both" refers to the mode of communication -- in person at the event, and through the media for those not at the event....

Last post on this, even though I know you won't acknowledge the truth.


Yes, one crowd is being referenced. Duh. He is stating that it was the largest by two different measurements. #1 In person. #2 Around the globe. He is asserting it was the largest with regards to each metric! It is possible to refer to a single thing and measure it more than one way, yes?


IF that's not what Spicer meant, he should have chosen his words more carefully.

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by TristramShandy

Does anybody here want to put their (on-line) name out there agreeing that Trump's crowd for inauguration was larger than Obama's or the women's march? Does anybody really believe this "alternative fact"?

I don't know... Spicer also included televised watchers in his numbers... no data about that has been released... The crowd at the inauguration was definitely smaller 1/2 to 1/3 the size of Obama's largest crowd... but as liberals said about Hillary's small rallies, crowd size doesn't matter...

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by saturno_v

...I also listened to the Spicer short press conference.....he said, I quote, "...this was a the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration period....both in person and around the globe".

To me this statement can be a bit ambiguous...it may mean that is was the largest in person and the largest via TV/Streaming or the two combined.... the first instance is clearly not the case, the second it may be (I do not know the figures).

I think Kellyanne Conway expression "alternate facts" was, unfortunately, wrongly worded, I think she meant to say providing different figures compared to what the media provided/assumed.

I have no doubt that Spicer may have meant combined. He statement didn't come across that way to me, and to many, MANY, other folks. As the White House Press Secretary, it would behoove him to be clear in his communication. Allowing questions at the end of the press conference probably would have gone a long way to clearing up any misunderstanding, right?


I'm fully certain that Kellyanne misspoke, yes. Again, if you're going to go in front of the camera and clarify an issue, you should probably plan out what you're going to say, especially if you're speaking for the entire Administration.


Spicer's 2nd press conference, where he clarified what he meant to say, was much more successful than the first one, in every aspect.

[GotHereQuickAsICould]

Originally Posted by hooligan

Last post on this, even though I know you won't acknowledge the truth.


Yes, one crowd is being referenced. Duh. He is stating that it was the largest by two different measurements. #1 In person. #2 Around the globe. He is asserting it was the largest with regards to each metric! It is possible to refer to a single thing and measure it more than one way, yes?


IF that's not what Spicer meant, he should have chosen his words more carefully.

For an experienced press secretary, you'd think Spicer would have been more precise with what he said. Carrying on about how many thousand fit here and how many there was just silly.

That Kellyanne had to explain the press secretary was using "alternative facts" is just sad.

But you can't help but feel sorry for those who believe such nonsense. I suspect they have had to swallow a lot of lies over the years. It can't be easy.