U.S President: Donald Trump

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

Or read it from both sides and then form a well informed view.

That's a good idea Mick, give it a go !

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

That's a good idea Mick, give it a go !

Well perhaps you ought to apply that sentiment to yourself as well Mr K.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What is the difference between Sean Spicer repeating false information from Fox News and The Daily Mail and Mail Online repeating false information from a website?

I repeat, Spicer did not make or repeat a line as if he was making such a claim, he quoted what the commentator had said and cited him. Just like I have quoted your post above and cited you, just because I have included your quote in this post does not mean, what you have said has come from me also.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

funny how the Daily Fail gets such a pounding for getting it all wrong all of the time

until it suits an agenda then it's a viable news source

Wow!

How is showing that the Daily Mail apologised to Melania Trump and paid her damages and fees an agenda?

Anyhoo, on a lighter note, any truth in the rumour that Mar-a-Lago is going to be redesignated as "Golf Course One"?

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

I repeat, Spicer did not make or repeat a line as if he was making such a claim, he quoted what the commentator had said and cited him. Just like I have quoted your post above and cited you, just because I have included your quote in this post does not mean, what you have said has come from me also.

The difference is you are acting as an individual, and he is acting, when he says these things, as the official spokesman of the White House and the President of the USA, and putting forward the official position of the President - that's his job...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Wow!
How is showing that the Daily Mail apologised to Melania Trump and paid her damages and fees an agenda?

I'm pleased you raised that point. I was a bit like the kids at school hoping someone else would raise their hand to ask the obvious question.

Originally Posted by Hugh

The difference is you are acting as an individual, and he is acting, when he says these things, as the official spokesman of the White House and the President of the USA, and putting forward the official position of the President - that's his job..

You said this last time this cropped up and I will tell you again. I don't need a lecture on job of White House press secretary. It does not change the fact he did not make the claim.

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm pleased you raised that point. I was a bit like the kids at school hoping someone else would raise their hand to ask the obvious question.

Still irrelevant though !

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

but if you only read the other side where does that leave you [is there a paper that is neutral]? and if any one suggests the FT i will puke

I think it may have been Hugh or someone else who suggested The Times and Reuters.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

You said this last time this cropped up and I will tell you again. I don't need a lecture on job of White House press secretary. It does not change the fact he did not make the claim.

Hugh's not lecturing you Mick, he's simply having a debate with you and ensuring that things are sufficiently clear for other forum members without your knowledge to follow.
Spicer gave the commentator credence by quoting him. It would be a reasonable assumption by viewers that the President's spokesman would not have quoted Fox New if he hadn't some kind of due diligence. If the US President can't afford the resources to do such a thing, who can?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think it may have been Hugh or someone else who suggested The Times and Reuters.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------


Hugh's not lecturing you Mick, he's simply having a debate with you and ensuring that things are sufficiently clear for other forum members without your knowledge to follow.
Spicer gave the commentator credence by quoting him. It would be a reasonable assumption by viewers that the President's spokesman would not have quoted Fox New if he hadn't some kind of due diligence. If the US President can't afford the resources to do such a thing, who can?

what do they say - to assume is to make an ass- of- u- and me

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Spicer gave the commentator credence by quoting him.

No he didn't.

[papa smurf]

[QUOTE=Hugh;35894810]Wow!

How is showing that the Daily Mail apologised to Melania Trump and paid her damages and fees an agenda?

.........

are you familiar with the tale of the boy who cried wolf

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

No he didn't.

No to which thing - giving him credence or quoting him?

---------- Post added at 13:58 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

what do they say - to assume is to make an ass- of- u- and me

I'm aware of that saying but I believe that viewers would have assumed some degree of verification from the President's official spokesperson and that this would not be an unreasonable assumption to make given his level of responsibility.
What did you think of the source suggestions?

[Osem]

Whatever's happened to all those huge demonstrations the media were predicting following Trump's victory. You know, all the massive, violent, anti-Trump protests which we were told were in the offing and would rock the Whitehouse. Maybe they've gone the same was as all those ridiculous project fear Brexit predictions...

Originally Posted by Osem

Whatever's happened to all those huge demonstrations the media were predicting following Trump's victory. You know, all the massive, violent, anti-Trump protests which we were told were in the offing and would rock the Whitehouse. Maybe they've gone the same was as all those ridiculous project fear Brexit predictions...

They changed tact. The last big campaign was to attend townhall meetings with members of congress to put pressure on them not to repeal Obamacare.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

They changed tact. The last big campaign was to attend townhall meetings with members of congress to put pressure on them not to repeal Obamacare.

Oh, you mean yet another failure?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

They changed tact. The last big campaign was to attend townhall meetings with members of congress to put pressure on them not to repeal Obamacare.

But we were warned of imminent and widespread social disorder, plus droves of people leaving the US immediately and other things. Doesn't look like any of that materialised and I'm not sure the sort of people who'd resort to riots would be the type who'd attend town hall meetings.