USA Presidential Election 2016

1181921232427

Comments

  • Hunter said:


    Hunter said:

    I was hoping the media would be fair and truthful, but as they showed over the weekend, they haven't so far.  
       Taking the Press Sec. statement and cutting out the relevant part of "Both" in person and around the world, to any reasonable prudent person, is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

      


    Just curious...  did you watch that first press conference?   The quote was, verbatim, "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration. Period. Both in person and around the globe." "Both" in person and around the world means "in person" and also "around the world", that's what the word "both" means, I think most reasonable people would agree on that.  If he's saying that it was the most people in person (which he did), then that's obviously untrue.  If he's also saying the most around the world, there's no way to know that one way or the other so just stating it as true "period" doesn't hold much water.  He also said other demonstrably false stuff about the grass cover and the metro ridership.  It doesn't matter, really, they're pointless things, but I'm very curious how the you arrive at the conclusion that the media was unfair and untruthful about it?
       Both to most people, means combined.   Or as Merriam-Webster list the definition:  
               "used as a function word to indicate and stress the inclusion of each of two or more things ".


     If your doctor were to tell you to take BOTH an asprin and a cough drop, would you only take the Asprin?  No, of course not, you would take both.  lol, this is not hard.

      His statement is true.  Both in person and around the world, (including totals of both groups, as the definition states) more people watched.

    The context of his statement was about inaugurations of President, it was clear to me and most reasonable people watching, that he was saying the first time, during a presidential inauguration.
      
    He was clearly without a doubt, speaking of past inaugurations of Presidents,
      This was the first time in our nation’s history that floor 
    coverings had been used to protect the grass on the mall.

      Perhaps he could have been clearer, but to call it a lie, is unreasonable and not fair, in my opinion.

    "Someone must be living in a bubble to believe what he said was true. "   Or on the other hand perhaps, those who are, unreasonable, trying to label it as a Lie, are suffering from TDS.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Yeah, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I think it takes guts to defend Trump here. I'm just trying to understand. If I said "Both Sam and Jim are rich" what do I mean?
    Vasilnate1
  • Anyone here think 3 to 5 million illegal aliens voted in our recent presidential election?
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Anyone here think 3 to 5 million illegal aliens voted in our recent presidential election?
    I liked Jake Tapper's twitter series on this:
    "WaPo: At White House, Trump tells congressional leaders 3-5 million illegal ballots cost him the popular vote"
    "That was WaPo headline -- I don't change headlines. But in point of fact there is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud."
    "In fact, if there were even 1 million illegally cast votes (there weren't), a president would be derelict to not order a major investigation"
    "If it were true, @jasoninthehouse and @SenRonJohnson would need to immediately hold hearings. @DHSgov would need to devote much time/energy"
    "3-5 million illegal votes??? Why, if it were true, why would @SpeakerRyan and @SenateMajLdr not be talking about this every single day???"
    "Unless of course it's not even remotely true and we all know this but no one in the WH and no GOP Leaders are willing to say this to him"
    "But that can't be it."
  • voodoorat said:

    Yeah, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I think it takes guts to defend Trump here. I'm just trying to understand. If I said "Both Sam and Jim are rich" what do I mean?

    Well, I don't think it means that their "combined" wealth makes them rich?  It must mean they are both independently rich.  yay words
  • CretanBullCretanBull Toronto
    edited January 2017

    In the context used, "both" doesn't imply that the ratings were the highest ever when two audiences are added, it implies that it was the highest in two different markets.

    If I said "The Beatles are the biggest band in both the UK and America" the implication is that The Beatles are the biggest band in America, and they are also the biggest band in the UK.  I'm not in implying that the Rolling Stones are the biggest band in the UK and the Doors are the biggest band in America, but if you combine Doors, Rolling Stones and Beatles fans in both countries the Beatles come out on top.

    Spicer is a Press Secretary - his job is communication.  When he minces words like this, it's to intentionally mislead while giving himself a level of plausible deniability that allows supporters to buy into what he's saying.

    They've been going this all along.

    When Trump said that Megyn Kelly was bleeding out of her "whatever" we all knew what he meant, but he insisted he meant nose.  When Trump said that maybe there could be a "2nd Amendment solution" to Hillary we knew what he meant, but he insisted that he was referring to a voting block and not an assassination.

    This is what they do.  They lie, the imply, they mislead but leave themselves an 'out' in case they get called on it.  It works both ways for them, either their BS goes unchallenged or they get called on it and use that as an excuse/example of how the media is bias against them.

    Vasilnate1ghm3hisdudeness915Michelle
  • Hunter said:


    Yeah, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I think it takes guts to defend Trump here. I'm just trying to understand. If I said "Both Sam and Jim are rich" what do I mean?
      I understand that you are not trying to pick a fight, and I appreciate that.  It is very pleasant to have a discussion without name calling etc.

        In regards to your question, I would certainly not call you a liar, without asking for clarification.  

      The definition of the word is probably the best way to "try and understand"  again-   "used as a function word to indicate and stress the inclusion of each of two or more things ".

          
      
        
       
  • Hunter said:

    Hunter said:


    Hunter said:

    I was hoping the media would be fair and truthful, but as they showed over the weekend, they haven't so far.  
       Taking the Press Sec. statement and cutting out the relevant part of "Both" in person and around the world, to any reasonable prudent person, is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

      


    Just curious...  did you watch that first press conference?   The quote was, verbatim, "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration. Period. Both in person and around the globe." "Both" in person and around the world means "in person" and also "around the world", that's what the word "both" means, I think most reasonable people would agree on that.  If he's saying that it was the most people in person (which he did), then that's obviously untrue.  If he's also saying the most around the world, there's no way to know that one way or the other so just stating it as true "period" doesn't hold much water.  He also said other demonstrably false stuff about the grass cover and the metro ridership.  It doesn't matter, really, they're pointless things, but I'm very curious how the you arrive at the conclusion that the media was unfair and untruthful about it?
       Both to most people, means combined.   Or as Merriam-Webster list the definition:  
               "used as a function word to indicate and stress the inclusion of each of two or more things ".


     If your doctor were to tell you to take BOTH an asprin and a cough drop, would you only take the Asprin?  No, of course not, you would take both.  lol, this is not hard.

      His statement is true.  Both in person and around the world, (including totals of both groups, as the definition states) more people watched.

    The context of his statement was about inaugurations of President, it was clear to me and most reasonable people watching, that he was saying the first time, during a presidential inauguration.
      
    He was clearly without a doubt, speaking of past inaugurations of Presidents,
      This was the first time in our nation’s history that floor 
    coverings had been used to protect the grass on the mall.

      Perhaps he could have been clearer, but to call it a lie, is unreasonable and not fair, in my opinion.

    "Someone must be living in a bubble to believe what he said was true. "   Or on the other hand perhaps, those who are, unreasonable, trying to label it as a Lie, are suffering from TDS.




    First, where is the data that shows that statement to be true? We know, for a fact, that in person attendance was higher for at least Obama and Reagan. We also know, for a fact, that TV viewership was higher for Obama and Reagan. So he must have some evidence hidden somewhere that online streaming made the difference. Because otherwise, even assuming "both" refers to combined it is still not true. And for the record, TV audience for Obama and Reagan were higher by millions.

    Second, floor coverings to protect the grass were also used in the Obama inaugurations.
    CretanBull
  • Vasilnate1Vasilnate1 Salem, MA
    edited January 2017
    Hunter said:


    Yeah, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I think it takes guts to defend Trump here. I'm just trying to understand. If I said "Both Sam and Jim are rich" what do I mean?
      I understand that you are not trying to pick a fight, and I appreciate that.  It is very pleasant to have a discussion without name calling etc.

        In regards to your question, I would certainly not call you a liar, without asking for clarification.  

      The definition of the word is probably the best way to "try and understand"  again-   "used as a function word to indicate and stress the inclusion of each of two or more things ".

          
      
        
       
    Yes, he was saying that both were record setting.  Not that the combined numbers were record setting. So the use of the word "both" in this context, means the inclusion of each number independently.  

    e.g.,  "Both Jim and A-ron have 100 comic books"  this means they each have 100, the use of "both" is including them under the title comic book owners.  

    "Together, both Jim and A-ron have 100 comic books" this means that they have 100 combined, and the use of the word both, with the help of the adverb together, means that they are included in the total of 100


    ghm3CretanBull
  • This is typical intentional obfuscation nonsense. To copy the quote above (I did not look it up myself but I trust the quote to be accurate verbatim):

    “This was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period. Both in person and around the globe.”

    There are two metrics at play here: 1) size of audience physically present and 2) how many watched it remotely on television/online/etc. around the globe.

    The first sentence, “This was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period" may very well be true, but we have no way of knowing that because we can't quantify the total around the world viewers from all TV outlets that aired it and all websites that streamed it/etc and have equally thorough counts from previous inaugurations to compare to, so it is just as impossible to legitimately make that claim as it is to disprove it.

    The second part is what makes it a lie. "Both in person and around the globe." This is objectively false. This statement is saying that the inauguration had the largest audience in person AND the largest audience around the globe. It is NOT simply saying that it had the largest audience in combination/total, as the first sentence says. This second sentence goes on to claim that BOTH in person and around the globe numbers were higher, which is incorrect since it's demonstrably false that there were more people physically there than any previous inauguration, and again we can't know what the around the globe number is.

    The bottom line is Trump just can't help himself. Whether it's obsessing over ratings for his show being lower because he's not on it anymore, or the turnout of the inauguration, or his golden toilet being bigger than yours, or his Trumpcopter having nicer seats than your Corolla's, his has to be bigger/better than yours. And if it's not, just lie and pretend it is because because his ego can't tolerate anything less. It's not fake it til you make it with him, it's fake it til you make it, then keep faking it still cause why stop now.


    Vasilnate1CretanBull
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • were not discussing numbers, were discussing truthfulness, or lack thereof.  No one cares about the crowd except Trump, which is scary.  If he's gonna wheel out the propaganda machine over such a trivial thing, its absurd.  And Spicer is never gonna say anything that Trump didnt force him to say, so when he says "He" wont lie, he's lying.  because he will get forced to lie
  • CretanBullCretanBull Toronto
    edited January 2017


    It's not real slick though, in Trump's case. He has just somehow been able to convince a critical mass of people that all the news sources in America are lying to them and he's the only one who has the truth. Even when he's on a videotape doing something, he's able to convince people he didn't do it. I think I might really move to Finland, you guys, lol
    This is what's sad about it though.  Everyone sees through their tactic, except his supporters.  No objective person is fooled by their little word games, but it's his supporters who are put into a position of either buying into obvious BS or arguing something that deep down they know isn't true.  Trump's deceptions don't work on us, they only make fools of his own supporters.  The day will come when his supporters will have no choice but to recognize that they've been lied to, used, exploited and made fools of...the working poor who voted him in will be the ones most hurt by his policies.  There will be a reckoning for that.
    Vasilnate1
  • I don't think the numbers for either were record-setting. There's no point in us arguing this, though. There are lots of places online where this is being discussed and compared. Unless you want to argue about crowd size all day and ignore the big impactful things Trump is changing like the Dakota pipeline and women's health initiatives across the globe.

    This is what they do.  They lie, the imply, they mislead but leave themselves an 'out' in case they get called on it.  It works both ways for them, either their BS goes unchallenged or they get called on it and use that as an excuse/example of how the media is bias against them.

    It's not real slick though, in Trump's case. He has just somehow been able to convince a critical mass of people that all the news sources in America are lying to them and he's the only one who has the truth. Even when he's on a videotape doing something, he's able to convince people he didn't do it. I think I might really move to Finland, you guys, lol
    It is slick though, you're just missing the point. Yes, his ego wants everyone to believe his nonsense, but he knows most won't, and it doesn't matter. Trump has clearly been able to identify his weaknesses and frequently end up benefiting from them. 

    So yes his ego may be why he started this nonsensical pissing contest, but in the end he's still successfully been able to make it continue to dominate headlines while he signs executive orders like an author at Barnes & Noble. The master stroke about this is, he's doing it to people/the media that know better but still fall for it over and over. 

    Trump is Lucy pulling the football on the media/etc. Yeah he just can't help himself, but it's no wonder why, it works every time. He's just holding two fingers up on one hand and claiming it's three while everyone explodes over the fact he's lying instead of noticing what he's grabbing with the other hand...

    CretanBullVasilnate1
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • ghm3 said:

    I don't think the numbers for either were record-setting. There's no point in us arguing this, though. There are lots of places online where this is being discussed and compared. Unless you want to argue about crowd size all day and ignore the big impactful things Trump is changing like the Dakota pipeline and women's health initiatives across the globe.

    This is what they do.  They lie, the imply, they mislead but leave themselves an 'out' in case they get called on it.  It works both ways for them, either their BS goes unchallenged or they get called on it and use that as an excuse/example of how the media is bias against them.

    It's not real slick though, in Trump's case. He has just somehow been able to convince a critical mass of people that all the news sources in America are lying to them and he's the only one who has the truth. Even when he's on a videotape doing something, he's able to convince people he didn't do it. I think I might really move to Finland, you guys, lol
    It is slick though, you're just missing the point. Yes, his ego wants everyone to believe his nonsense, but he knows most won't, and it doesn't matter. Trump has clearly been able to identify his weaknesses and frequently end up benefiting from them. 

    So yes his ego may be why he started this nonsensical pissing contest, but in the end he's still successfully been able to make it continue to dominate headlines while he signs executive orders like an author at Barnes & Noble. The master stroke about this is, he's doing it to people/the media that know better but still fall for it over and over. 

    Trump is Lucy pulling the football on the media/etc. Yeah he just can't help himself, but it's no wonder why, it works every time. He's just holding two fingers up on one hand and claiming it's three while everyone explodes over the fact he's lying instead of noticing what he's grabbing with the other hand...



    I've spent so much time thinking about this and still don't have an answer.  I don't think that he's smart enough to keep doing these things as intentional distractions and there's all the evidence in the world to suggest that he has a fragile ego and a desire to deny reality - BUT - it happens time and time again, these things are distractions and he is hammering through horrible policy without much attention because we're still arguing about the relevance of facts.

    It's like I can't give him credit for being a manipulative mastermind, but it happens so often that it can't be chance...can it?!

    I go back to my earlier point though...even if he is intentionally playing us, he's doing the same to his own supporters and at least we're on to him.  They think that they're in on Trump's joke, but ultimately they're the victim of it.


  • I think you're just spinning your wheels trying to understand the man. I mean, this is a guy who was born a rich white male who is now a billionaire and the POTUS and yet he still gets upset if people make fun of him. He's basically a spoiled brat in a 70 year old body
    CretanBullcalebthrowerTravis
  • I think you're just spinning your wheels trying to understand the man. I mean, this is a guy who was born a rich white male who is now a billionaire and the POTUS and yet he still gets upset if people make fun of him. He's basically a spoiled brat in a 70 year old body

    The world's only billionaire victim!
    Travis
  • @CretanBull To be clear, I never said he was a mastermind thinking up these schemes from the start. Instead, as I said I think he's mostly just aware of his weaknesses and is able to frequently pivot them into a benefit, or at least mostly mitigate the issues they cause. No he's not planning all of these controversies to create at a specific time to then execute XYZ, but he knows himself enough to know when he's doing/has done something that gets everyone riled up, and is able to take advantage. He's not a genius mastermind nor a total buffoon. 
    CretanBull
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • calebthrowercalebthrower South Carolina
    Came back to the thread for funny mash up videos and got a lesson on the semantics of the word "both".
    ghm3voodoorat
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @akritenbrink This is why Trump ran for president:



    Bill Burr joked about exactly this after the election, but I seriously think Trump is petty and egotistic enough to actually have decided to run because of something like this.


  • MichelleMichelle California
    edited January 2017
    On another note, I've been enjoying these #freemelania memes a lot. :)

    image

    cdrivecalebthrowerOliviaDweeniegirl
  • @Michelle I think she is definitely in need of some assistance. This one is hilarious yet worrisome at the same time.



    voodooratcalebthrowerMichelle
This discussion has been closed.