You are not logged in. Please register or login.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 139 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

1.) Alternative Facts - Claims that are also true and portray a better picture for a party. E.g. "Trump had more people watching his inauguration (including TV and the internet) than any other President." Compared to "Trump has half the attendance to his inauguration as Obama had in '09."

Both are concurrently true, but provide an oppositional narrative. That's "alternative facts." "The US spends more per student than any other country" and "The US ranks towards the bottom in education among top tier nations" are alternative facts.

Uggh, I can't even get thru the rest, because now you're doing revisionist history.  She wasn't implying "TV and the internet".....  She was defending Sean Spicer, and I've pasted Sean Spicers comments, verbatim, below:

"Photographs 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," Spicer said on Jan. 21. "That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period. Both in person and around the globe."


Don't make excuses and change things to fit your argument.


Read the last sentence from your article quote.

PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
misterID wrote:

but every single media story I've seen on this has said the decision was made on poor sales.

If you think about it logically, it would take a couple quarters of slumping sales to pull a brand. The past couple quarters Donald Trump was running for President, even back a year and a half of Primaries. Likely, a lack of interest and desire to wear the Trump name did begin when he primary run began. As that & the 'slumping sales' ran concurrently.

PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

1.) Alternative Facts - Claims that are also true and portray a better picture for a party. E.g. "Trump had more people watching his inauguration (including TV and the internet) than any other President." Compared to "Trump has half the attendance to his inauguration as Obama had in '09."

Both are concurrently true, but provide an oppositional narrative. That's "alternative facts." "The US spends more per student than any other country" and "The US ranks towards the bottom in education among top tier nations" are alternative facts.

Uggh, I can't even get thru the rest, because now you're doing revisionist history.  She wasn't implying "TV and the internet".....  She was defending Sean Spicer, and I've pasted Sean Spicers comments, verbatim, below:

"Photographs 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," Spicer said on Jan. 21. "That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period. Both in person and around the globe."


Don't make excuses and change things to fit your argument.


Read the last sentence from your article quote.

Yeah,  "In person"  as in "Trump had the largest IN PERSON attendance at any Presidential inauguration"....  which must be one of your "Alternative Facts". 

Thanks for confirming I'm right. Nice of ya! 22

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 139 

Re: US Politics Thread

Me thinks you need to retake English. The 'and' without a comma implies the addition of both.  You know "the largest audience both in person, and around the world" would imply each on their own was the largest. The comma was absent. So even the author who transcribed their comments made that distinction.

But keeping focusing on nonsense like this. The gotcha stuff doesn't work.

22

PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

Me thinks you need to retake English. The 'and' without a comma implies the addition of both.  You know "the largest audience both in person, and around the world" would imply each on their own was the largest. The comma was absent. So even the author who transcribed their comments made that distinction.

But keeping focusing on nonsense like this. The gotcha stuff doesn't work.

22

Are you kidding me... Is that the bogus horseshit they tried to spin??  That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.  Hahaha, hold up, let me get up onto my chair. I fell off from laughing too hard.

Congrats to the Atlanta Falcons for scoring more points than their opponents in BOTH the Super Bowl and the entire playoffs.  Great job, you're the greatest team this NFL season!

PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:

Did Spice-man ever concede to the administration being Flip-Floppers?

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 330 

Re: US Politics Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:

I don't really agree with the decision, and I am not saying that because I voted for Trump. The roll out was bad, yes. But it was only 120 days. The state of Washington acted as if it was a permanent ban.

So, in summary:

Bad roll out
But I thought 120 for 7 dangerous countries wasn't too out of line

And yes, there have been arrests from those 7 countries in the US. That was a lie and the AP debunked that nonsense.

misterID
 Rep: 475 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

And the children and babies who needed lifesaving operations thast were banned from entering?

It was unconstitutional. If you say it was badly rolled out then it should be taken back and done right. Right?

PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:

Holy Sh!t!!   Donald Trump actually RETWEETED his own tweet with the official POTUS twitter account?!  WTF is this administration doing??!

https://twitter.com/potus
President Trump Retweeted
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Feb 8

My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!
94,434 replies 25,863 retweets 131,185 likes

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 330 

Re: US Politics Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:
misterID wrote:

And the children and babies who needed lifesaving operations thast were banned from entering?

It was unconstitutional. If you say it was badly rolled out then it should be taken back and done right. Right?

Why would anyone come to the Us for health care when everyone tells me Canada and Europe and everyone else with government health care has better health care than the US?

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB