Does anyone "dress for dinner" anymore?

I am about to take my lady out to dinner. I'm wearing a suit.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Spicer still insisted that the inauguration crowd was "the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration—period, both in person and around the globe."

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said, contradicting all available data.

Aerial photos have indicated that former president Barack Obama's first inauguration attracted a much larger crowd. Nielsen ratings show that Obama also had a bigger television audience.
Spicer said, without any evidence, that some photos were "intentionally framed" to downplay Trump's crowd.
He also expressed objections to specific Twitter posts from journalists. And he said, "we're going to hold the press accountable," partly by reaching the public through social networking sites.

His statement included several specific misstatements of fact in addition to the overarching one.

"This is the first time in our nation's history that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the Mall," Spicer said, claiming that this "had the effect of highlighting areas people were not standing whereas in years past the grass eliminated this visual."
In fact, coverings were used for Obama's second inauguration in 2013. ( )
"This was also the first time that fencing and magnetometers went as far back on the Mall, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from being able to access the Mall as quickly as they had in inaugurations past," Spicer said.
In fact, a United States Secret Service spokesperson told CNN, no magnetometers were used on the Mall.
And Spicer said, "We know that 420,000 people used the D.C, Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 for president Obama's last inaugural."

Spicer's number for ridership on Friday was actually low -- the correct number, according to Metro itself, was 570,557. But there were actually 782,000 trips taken for Obama's second inaugural in 2013.

Spicer, at times almost yelling while reading a prepared statement, took no questions. CNNMoney called his cell phone a few minutes later; he did not answer.

Some longtime White House correspondents were stunned by the tirade.
Glenn Thrush of The New York Times wrote on Twitter, "Jaw meet floor."
"I've run out of adjectives," wrote Chuck Todd, the moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press."
Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post said Spicer's assertion about "what you guys should be writing" was "chilling."
Reactions were overwhelmingly negative, and not just from journalists.
Ari Fleischer, who had the same job as Spicer during the George W. Bush administration, tweeted, "This is called a statement you're told to make by the President. And you know the President is watching."
And Brian Fallon, who was in line to become press secretary if Hillary Clinton had won, wrote, "Sean Spicer lacks the guts or integrity to refuse orders to go out and lie. He is a failure in this job on his first full day."
Conservative commentator Bill Kristol said "it is embarrassing, as an American, to watch this briefing by Sean Spicer from the podium at the White House. Not the RNC. The White House."
The White House alerted the press corps to Spicer's statement more than an hour ahead of time.
The CNN television network made a choice not to broadcast the Spicer statement live. Instead, the statement was monitored and then reported on after the fact.

Of course. But here's the thing- and either the media will come to terms with it or they won't- Trump talks the way you and I are talking here. Sometimes we say dumb stuff and later try to clarify or admit that it was dumb. Trump tends to just gaslight and pretend he never said it. John McWhorter said that what is so jarring about Trump is that we are used to presidents "Speaking", meaning their words are measured and carry a certain weight, whereas Trump "talks", meaning he just says what he's thinking at the time like FavreFan and LTG discussing hoops.

From things you've written I get the impression you believe that president shouldn't "talk" in that way. Maybe you're right and the office demands a certain dignity that cannot be achieved by talking like a regular guy. But McWhorter also points out that there has been a gradual casualness to the behavior of president over a long period of time. Remember when Bill Clinton played his saxophone on Arsenio? That would have been unheard of for Eisenhower. But even the relatively buttoned down Nixon said, "Sock it to me!" on Laugh In. It's similar to the increasing casualness we find acceptable in air travel. I'm on a small island with my sport coat. That didn't happen overnight. Does anyone "dress for dinner" anymore? On those days when I wear a suit and tie, I'm almost certainly the only guy on my El car dressed that way. With Trump it seems we have reached an apex of casualness and off the cuff tweeting and talking by the president.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

With Trump it seems we have reached an apex of casualness and off the cuff tweeting and talking by the president.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Nice!

First, yes, I agree that you and I clearly have different ideas of how a president should comport himself. I do believe that once we cross certain lines, we've just become a savages with no respect for any tradition or office. It is absolutely mind-boggling that I feel that way (given my general thoughts on tradition and religion) and you don't (given the fact that you think we should execute people who don't wear jackets on planes), but it is interesting, nonetheless.

Second, I don't mean this in a condescending or argumentative way - I say it only because I believe it to be true... this post shows your bias as well as any you've ever posted. You are comparing Nixon saying "sock it to me" on Laugh In and Bill Clinton playing a saxophone? (I'm not even sure how that's risque') to a guy who has literally been caught on tape saying he grabs women by the pussy, has oogled his daughter without any remorse, mocked a handicapped guy (whether you believe it or not), accused a female reporter of being on the rag (that's misogynist, no matter how much we like to shrug off misogyny here), got into a war of words with a family who lost their son fighting for the U.S., and came up with stupid "nicknames" for his political opponents throughout the entire election year. How on any planet are those comparable to a guy playing a saxophone or Tricky Dick saying a one-liner on a comedy show? If it's because he just "talks", that doesn't make it any better. In fact, it might be worse because he's probably incapable of "speaking."

This is not some gradual progression toward casual behavior in a president. If it is, it's more disturbing than I thought. I hate political correctness, and I absolutely loathe the fact that politicians never say anything. But - on the other end of the spectrum - once we reach a point where the president isn't "above" anything (genuine or not), it's a very, very, very bad message for regular citizens of the U.S. or citizens of the world, and it promotes a general attitude of laziness and disrespect that disturbs me.

To address your question of whether the media will come to terms with it, I absolutely hope they don't.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

If you mention Hillary Clinton again, I'm going to find your stable and murder your horses.

It's impossible to discuss Trump outside the paradigm of Hillary Clinton. The main reason he is president is because the Democratic party insisted on running that scumbag.

It's impossible to discuss Trump outside the paradigm of Hillary Clinton. The main reason he is president is because the Democratic party insisted on running that scumbag.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

This is a perfect example of what we're talking about: Trump/lackeys spew bullshit, it is corrected, but fanboys take the corrective as "unfair criticism" and in doing so unwittingly fall in line with Trump's plan to discredit the media so he can spew bullshit without anyone holding him accountable.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/s ... index.html

It's impossible to discuss Trump outside the paradigm of Hillary Clinton. The main reason he is president is because the Democratic party insisted on running that scumbag.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

First, I would hope that no one considers me a Trump "fanboy". My posts contain all kinds of criticisms of Donald Trump, but I consider this conversation to be more about the media than something specific to Trump.

As FarveFan said and I obviously agree, words do matter. Spicer's language regarding this inauguration being the "most watched" was very specific. “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — PERIOD,” Spicer later claimed. “Both in person and around the globe.” Considering this was the first inauguration to be streamed on so many platforms, that statement is quite likely true.

But I really think the lede is being buried here. There is an anti-Trump story to be written without playing gotcha or parsing words. And that is, WHO THE FUCK CARES??? We have a president who is so concerned about something as trivial as how many people watched his inauguration that he sends his press secretary out in a frenzy to whine about the coverage. This is just another version of Trump insisting his hands are large. It doesn't matter if they are or not. What matters is that he cares so much about the perception. You have the nuclear codes, guy. You don't have to whip your cock out all the time regardless of how large or small it may be.

Still, a reasonable person should be able to see- without Trump, Spicer, or Conway constantly pointing it out- that most of the spin regarding Trump is negative. You can write the story any way you want. "In spite of gray skies and light drizzle, the mood in Washington, D.C. was jubilant as our nation's 45th president was sworn in." or "The unrelenting rain could have been a metaphor for the feelings surrounding the incoming Trump administration." To use a Colbertism, both statements are "truthy".

Only 1 man has the ability to be objective regarding anything President Trump.

One may ask what the difference is between the propaganda of Trump and the propaganda of any other president, which is fair. I think Trump's style is more about blatant lying, whereby a lie becomes a whole narrative, while others try to shape narratives in misleading ways, but the narrative is not based on bullshit like Trump's. Take Obamacare for instance. The Obama administration tried to always paint the initiative in a positive way, citing statistics in ways that supported they narrative while ignoring or maybe disregarding other statistics that would paint Obamacare in a more negative light. What Trump does is say, for example, "Trumpcare is the best healthcare solution ever created in the history of the world. It's going to do beautiful things for every single person, no one is going to die, no one is going to get sick. It was put together by the best mind in history, and I also had a little help from some really smart econmicists and healthcare experts that I advised. Anyone who cites so called statistics indicating that Trumpcare actually increased premiums way beyond the norm, that it was too much of a burden on small businesses, or that it didn't provide many healthcare options to working families, is a liar and is distributing fake news." And the distance between that kind of propaganda, which only exists these days in autocratic countries, and using the power of the state to prosecute people who dare contradict your claims, is not that far.

It sure isn't you.

The fact that rather than actually discussing the issue as vegan and I are doing, you resort to name-calling and declaring anyone who makes a point you dislike a "Trumpet" says a whole lot about your objectivity and ability to discuss the subject rationally.

Edit: Calling someone a Trumpet is far different from calling people antisemites and the former president a terrorist.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

There is no discussing anything with you and sooner or later MANY will stop trying. Vegan, FF and Leash have been more than fair and reasonable, but they would have just as good of a chance getting Donald Trump or a brick wall to agree with them.

There is no discussing anything with you and sooner or later MANY will stop trying. Vegan, FF and Leash have been more than fair and reasonable, but they would have just as good of a chance getting Donald Trump or a brick wall to agree with them.

Edit: Calling someone a Trumpet is far different from calling people antisemites and the former president a terrorist.

If anyone called him a terrorist the closest I would say would be FF

FF, vegan, and leash aren't close to as dogmatic as you are. They know how to have a discussion without shouting the other guy down. When it comes to these subjects you're like a fascist. You want to put an end to every conversation by declaring someone a "Trumpet".

If every statement a person makes regarding Jews is negative, I don't know what else to call it. And I don't believe anyone here ever called the previous president a terrorist although MANY disliked his drone program.