Is Sean Spicer the new Baghdad Bob?

[silverhandorder]

Lol fools all your bases belong to us.

 

[anaconda]

If it was a transparent lie we would be having this discussion.

Even Kellyanne Conway asserted that the crowd size is not verifiable. So Spicier Spicy's comment seems pretty transparently deceitful.

 

[anaconda]

Subjective comments like this are OK. However, if Spicier-Spicy had made the claim that it was the highest grossing movie of all time, it would be a falsehood. If it was intentional, it would qualify as a lie.

 

[anaconda]

 

[UWDude]

Even Kellyanne Conway asserted that the crowd size is not verifiable. So Spicier Spicy's comment seems pretty transparently deceitful.

The ratings and streaming audience was quantifiable. And it was larger by 9 million people, which would dwarf any difference in actual inaugural attendance.

 

[Suzu]

CNN and countless liberal pundits and tweeters all showed a photo of what the crowd for the inauguration looked like early in the morning rather than at noon EST or thereabouts. YET on their own website is a pannable and zoomable gigapixel image that shows the actual size of the crowd. Those of you who doubt Sean Spicer and believe Chuck Todd et.al. ought to have a good long look at it:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

 

[Suzu]

Contrary to what the fake news has reported. Looks like a lot of people to me.

Yep. All the way back to the monument.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

 

[Suzu]

Donald Trump does apparently. This isn't about the crowd size. It's that Trump directed his press secretary to go out and lie about a stupid point that was easily proven false. Will Trump's vanity and popularity be more important than issues? It brings into question how in the world will Trump and his staff handle an actual national crisis?

How was it proven false?

Isn't the entire media/military/industrial/big-pharma/big-agra complex hating on and constantly lying about the POTUS a national crisis? Isn't the violence and division that's been fostered and magnified by the media a national crisis, or at least headed in that direction if it's not countered by "alternative facts"?

 

[donnay]

Yep. All the way back to the monument.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

Exactly that should shut up some of these Fake news followers. Even CNN can't deny it--since they posted it. LOL!

 

[CPUd]

 

[donnay]

Keep on promoting the Fake news and you lose.

 

[CPUd]

 

[staerker]

George Soros really knows how to bus people in.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Yep. All the way back to the monument.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

What image are you talking about? That one shows the same empty tarps, plain as day. They just aren't as obvious because it's not an overhead picture.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I totally buy that there were more of these p**sy marchers than attendees at Trump's inauguration. But is it really a surprise? Washington DC voted 90% for Hillary. It's not like they need to find people very far to bus in with those kinds of numbers from the metro area who would despise Trump. It's also a no brainer that thousands more would show up to a Democrat inauguration like Obama's than for Trump due to the local political leanings alone.

 

[anaconda]

The ratings and streaming audience was quantifiable. And it was larger by 9 million people, which would dwarf any difference in actual inaugural attendance.

I think that's apples & oranges. For this to be germane we would need to know how many non-attendee viewers would have attended if they could not have streamed or watched TV. And we would need to know to what extent streaming has become more accessible and usable since prior inaugurations.

 

[UWDude]

I think that's apples & oranges. For this to be germane we would need to know how many non-attendee viewers would have attended if they could not have streamed or watched TV. And we would need to know to what extent streaming has become more accessible and usable since prior inaugurations.

It was the largest global audience, period. Streaming is way more available now, and because of that, more people than EVER watched the inauguration. 7 million on Twitter alone.

 

[EBounding]

The audience was smaller than Obama's inaugurations, even with internet streaming.

 

[specsaregood]

The audience was smaller than Obama's inaugurations, even with internet streaming.

I really don't give a shit about this topic; but I don't think that is even remotely true. What with streaming and dramalama about it all. I don't know anybody that watched Obama's inauguration, whereas pretty much everybody I know watched at least part of Trumps. Most watching to see if anything unexpected happened. And none of the people I know that watched it were trumphumpers or into politics at all. It was simply much more available/easy to watch this time.

 

[Jamesiv1]

The audience was smaller than Obama's inaugurations, even with internet streaming.

That is total fake news.

And only a dumbass would fall for it.

You sir, are no lover of liberty.