Spicy Blocks News Organizations Critical of Trump

[ClydeR]

The White House blocked a number of news outlets from covering spokesman Sean Spicer’s question-and-answer session on Friday afternoon.

Spicer decided to hold an off-camera “gaggle” with reporters inside his West Wing office instead of the traditional on-camera briefing in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room.

Among the outlets not permitted to cover the gaggle were news organizations that President Trump has singled out for criticism, including CNN.

The New York Times, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, BBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News were among the other news organizations not permitted to attend.

More... (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/321049-white-house-hand-picks-select-media-for-briefing)

What will Melissa McCarthy say?

[Gelston]

Spicy.

[Tgo01]

Wait so Time was invited? Well nothing to see here then. Time is like the biggest piece of shit liberal "news" media out there. If they are allowed in then this is a non-story. Try again, Clyder.

[Androidpk]

The WH picking and choosing what news organizations to let in is a non-story? This is mostly definitely a "story".

WTF are they thinking?

[Tgo01]

The WH picking and choosing what news organizations to let in is a non-story? This is mostly definitely a "story".

WTF are they thinking?

It's clearly not a left/right issue if they are letting the Times in.

[Tgo01]

I mean shit, why is Buzzfeed and The Daily Mail even allowed to cover White House press briefings anyways? Talk about fake news.

[Androidpk]

It's clearly not a left/right issue if they are letting the Times in.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

[Tgo01]

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

Okay.

It's clearly not a left/right issue if they are letting the Times in.

[Archigeek]

Okay.

It's clearly not a left/right issue if they are letting the Times in.

The Times was not invited.

[Tisket]

Petty.

[Tisket]

Petty, controlling, and fearful.

[Tgo01]

The Times was not invited.

My bad, I meant Time magazine.

[Shaps]

The WH picking and choosing what news organizations to let in is a non-story? This is mostly definitely a "story".

WTF are they thinking?

Like the times the Obama administration wouldn't let certain news organizations in to certain meetings?

I think both administrations doing it is absurd, but don't make a big deal out of it now.. if you didn't back then.

[Shaps]

Petty, controlling, and fearful.

Meh.. don't get all hysterical over it. Obama did the same shit.

[Tisket]

Meh.. don't get all hysterical over it. Obama did the same shit.

Don't be a moron. The press was pissed then as well.

It's petty, controlling, and fearful regardless of the WH tenant.

[Androidpk]

Like the times the Obama administration wouldn't let certain news organizations in to certain meetings?

I think both administrations doing it is absurd, but don't make a big deal out of it now.. if you didn't back then.

It's absurd no matter who does it.

[Tisket]

This is an interesting read. Info on a "gaggle": http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/white-house-media-seek-new-rules-cover-obama-blog-entry-1.2194588

[Neveragain]

I think the who is going to pee where questioning was the final straw. :lol2:

Americans: Masses of middle class jobs will be vanishing over the coming decade leaving multiple generations without the skill sets to compete in the digital age. What are we going to do?

The press: But where will we pee?

:banghead:

[Shaps]

It's absurd no matter who does it.

Did you read all of my comment or no? I already said it was absurd.... so you're just repeating what I already said. LOL.

[Shaps]

Don't be a moron. The press was pissed then as well.

It's petty, controlling, and fearful regardless of the WH tenant.

OHHH NO! And thanks for the negative rep comment. Good to see your open, caring, inclusive demeanor reveal itself.

And just like PK.. did you not read what I wrote? I already said it was absurd regardless who was in the WH.. but of course, you all just get so worked up, vision goes red, and just have to try to make a point... even though it's already been made.

You two.. you're both trolling me aren't you? LOL.. good one.. /knee slap.

[Androidpk]

So because you said it's absurd others can't say the same thing? Ooookay, bud.

[Shaps]

So because you said it's absurd others can't say the same thing? Ooookay, bud.

Ohhh.. you were saying it to agree with me. Got it now. You simply could of said "I agree with you". :)

People getting along now! This is how it should work.

[Whirlin]

This is an interesting read. Info on a "gaggle": http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/white-house-media-seek-new-rules-cover-obama-blog-entry-1.2194588
It was an interesting read, but it sounded more like Old Media upset about the inclusion of New Media and more general population into the press corps and subsequent 'watering down' the press corps. It sounds like more openness and competition rather than arbitrarily reducing the presence of a particular news agency without defined criteria.

[Tgo01]

Someone from CNN was caught feeding debate questions to Hillary. No, seriously, that really happened.

I'm not going to lose sleep over this same "news" organization not being invited to one private session with the press secretary.

The media has forgotten what being the media is all about. They are too busy playing partisan politics, pushing their narrative, and publishing outright fake news. If this is the kind of kick in the ass they need to get their bearings again then great.

If they are instead going to ride a wave of "Oh woe is me! what did we do to deserve this?" Then fuck them.

[Whirlin]

Someone from CNN was caught feeding debate questions to Hillary. No, seriously, that really happened.
I'm not going to lose sleep over this same "news" organization not being invited to one private session with the press secretary.
The media has forgotten what being the media is all about. They are too busy playing partisan politics, pushing their narrative, and publishing outright fake news. If this is the kind of kick in the ass they need to get their bearings again then great.
If they are instead going to ride a wave of "Oh woe is me! what did we do to deserve this?" Then fuck them.

The same partisan politics criteria isn't being applied to both sides of the aisle, and there has been no established guidance for what is or isn't acceptable behavior. It's incredibly arbitrary and knee jerk

[Parkbandit]

Don't be a moron. The press was pissed then as well.

It's petty, controlling, and fearful regardless of the WH tenant.

This.

Exactly this.

[Tisket]

OHHH NO! And thanks for the negative rep comment. Good to see your open, caring, inclusive demeanor reveal itself.

And just like PK.. did you not read what I wrote? I already said it was absurd regardless who was in the WH.. but of course, you all just get so worked up, vision goes red, and just have to try to make a point... even though it's already been made.

You two.. you're both trolling me aren't you? LOL.. good one.. /knee slap.

Have you been lobotomized? I called you a moron for stating the obvious and acting like it was a keen insight.

[Parkbandit]

The same partisan politics criteria isn't being applied to both sides of the aisle, and there has been no established guidance for what is or isn't acceptable behavior. It's incredibly arbitrary and knee jerk

Elaborate.. I don't get what you are saying.

[Thondalar]

This.

Exactly this.

While Tisket's comment is correct, I think it is a bit different now.

I was flipping back and forth between MSNBC and FOX the other night, and O'Reilly had a guest, don't remember her name...some Democratic strategist big-wig insider type, been around for forever, knew everybody in Washington and everybody in the media...he asked her, point-blank, to name conservatives at ABC, CBS, NBC...she was able to come up with one or two specific reporters, and she was correct on that. When it came to CNN and MSNBC, she had nothing. Was literally speechless.

IMO, we shouldn't be able to identify the political leanings of news reporters. If we've "progressed" to the point where that is unavoidable, we should at least have a fairly even mix. This is a catch-22, because once we abandon the former, the latter is nearly impossible...we can't mandate who gets in to journalism.

This is why journalism is supposed to be neutral. You're not supposed to have a bias when reporting general news. That's what the Opinion pages are for.

[time4fun]

Wait so Time was invited? Well nothing to see here then. Time is like the biggest piece of shit liberal "news" media out there. If they are allowed in then this is a non-story. Try again, Clyder.

Of course you don't see any problem.

So we're clear- this is an example of him punishing news organizations for not saying what he wants them to say. You may recognize this as an incredibly dangerous attack on the 1st Amendment. Also highly illegal. The government is not allowed to try to compel citizens into speech. The 1st Amendment literally says that the Government may not abridge the freedom of the press.

Just because you like Trump doesn't mean that you should just ignore the basic tenants of democracy.

[time4fun]

While Tisket's comment is correct, I think it is a bit different now.

I was flipping back and forth between MSNBC and FOX the other night, and O'Reilly had a guest, don't remember her name...some Democratic strategist big-wig insider type, been around for forever, knew everybody in Washington and everybody in the media...he asked her, point-blank, to name conservatives at ABC, CBS, NBC...she was able to come up with one or two specific reporters, and she was correct on that. When it came to CNN and MSNBC, she had nothing. Was literally speechless.

IMO, we shouldn't be able to identify the political leanings of news reporters. If we've "progressed" to the point where that is unavoidable, we should at least have a fairly even mix. This is a catch-22, because once we abandon the former, the latter is nearly impossible...we can't mandate who gets in to journalism.

This is why journalism is supposed to be neutral. You're not supposed to have a bias when reporting general news. That's what the Opinion pages are for.

Yeah the democrats on Fox are about as representative as the republicans on MSNBC.

And none of this **IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM** makes it okay for the President of a democracy to attack the press for not saying what he wants them to say.

Lord, I remember when conservatives used to be patriotic.

[Thondalar]

Of course you don't see any problem.

So we're clear- this is an example of him punishing news organizations for not saying what he wants them to say. You may recognize this as an incredibly dangerous attack on the 1st Amendment. Also highly illegal. The government is not allowed to try to compel citizens into speech. The 1st Amendment literally says that the Government may not abridge the freedom of the press.

Just because you like Trump doesn't mean that you should just ignore the basic tenants of democracy.

And you should realize this is none of that. There are no laws saying anyone has to be invited to anything. If Spicer/Whitehouse wants to invite certain people to certain things, they're completely free and able to. You really should look up the word "compel" before you use it.

Let me know when Trump passes an executive order that says NY Times isn't allowed to print anything bad about him.

[Tisket]

While Tisket's comment is correct, I think it is a bit different now.

I was flipping back and forth between MSNBC and FOX the other night, and O'Reilly had a guest, don't remember her name...some Democratic strategist big-wig insider type, been around for forever, knew everybody in Washington and everybody in the media...he asked her, point-blank, to name conservatives at ABC, CBS, NBC...she was able to come up with one or two specific reporters, and she was correct on that. When it came to CNN and MSNBC, she had nothing. Was literally speechless.

IMO, we shouldn't be able to identify the political leanings of news reporters. If we've "progressed" to the point where that is unavoidable, we should at least have a fairly even mix. This is a catch-22, because once we abandon the former, the latter is nearly impossible...we can't mandate who gets in to journalism.

This is why journalism is supposed to be neutral. You're not supposed to have a bias when reporting general news. That's what the Opinion pages are for.

I don't disagree.

[time4fun]

And you should realize this is none of that. There are no laws saying anyone has to be invited to anything. If Spicer/Whitehouse wants to invite certain people to certain things, they're completely free and able to. You really should look up the word "compel" before you use it.

Let me know when Trump passes an executive order that says NY Times isn't allowed to print anything bad about him.

So let me explain how the law works.

The law is a set of principles that are designed specifically to encompass a diverse set of situations that fall under the intended purview of the law.

There is no law, for example, that says "You may not bludgeon someone to death with a platform shoe". But there's a law that says "Don't fucking kill people".

Likewise, there is no law that says "You may not punish the press by refusing to invite them to a press event", but there is a law that says "You may not abridge the rights of the press", just as there is case law that says "You may not attempt to compel the press- for any other US citizen- to say what you want them to say".

So let's please move beyond 2nd grade understandings of the law and talk about the intent of the action.

[Tgo01]

So we're clear- this is an example of him punishing news organizations for not saying what he wants them to say. You may recognize this as an incredibly dangerous attack on the 1st Amendment. Also highly illegal. The government is not allowed to try to compel citizens into speech. The 1st Amendment literally says that the Government may not abridge the freedom of the press.

There is no easy way of saying this so I'll just come right out and say it...you are retarded.

There is nothing illegal about anything Trump is doing. You can call him stupid, petty, an asshole, whatever you want. But it is not illegal. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of press.

As far as compelling citizens into speech? What? This move isn't compelling anyone to do anything. CNN can continue to be be Clinton's News Network all they want. They can continue to do their hit pieces on Trump all they want. Gullible morons like you can still read their shitty ass "news" articles all they want. They are still free to feed debate questions to Democrat candidates all they want.

Nothing has changed. Just because you lie about your personal accomplishments doesn't mean you can make up shit and expect people to believe it.

[Tgo01]

Likewise, there is no law that says "You may not punish the press by refusing to invite them to a press event", but there is a law that says "You may not abridge the rights of the press"

You're absolutely right.

Let's look up what the word "abridge" means:

curtail (rights or privileges).

So let's start the debate here; which rights of the press were curtailed with this decision?

[Thondalar]

Yeah the democrats on Fox are about as representative as the republicans on MSNBC.

Well no, not exactly...Fox has very vocal and powerful Dems on all the time...and they offer/look for them to come on all the time.

MSNBC, on the other hand, rarely has anyone at all, and if they do its like that guy that started the "blacks for Trump" thing, and they had him on against a panel of screaming libtards that wouldn't even let him talk half the time.


And none of this **IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM** makes it okay for the President of a democracy to attack the press for not saying what he wants them to say.

If that were actually the case, I'd agree with you 100%. However, that's not the case. I've not seen anything where he has told the press to say anything one way or the other. Responding to abnormal attacks FROM the media is, in my opinion, completely within his rights...and these attacks are quite abnormal.

I've been paying attention to politics for many years now. I've read newspapers and watched TV for many years now...since before there even was cable TV. I watched how the media responded to Clinton, I watched how the media responded to H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush, and Obama...what is happening right now is nothing even remotely approaching any of that. What is happening now is a full-blown smear campaign against a sitting President.

A free press is predicated on a neutral press. While they certainly have their freedom regardless, turning your entire paper into an Op-ed isn't going to end well.


Lord, I remember when conservatives used to be patriotic.

I'm a Constitutional Purist, and believe very deeply in the liberal ideals of our Constitution. I would defend those ideals with my life.

Also, I'm not a Conservative...so I guess I shouldn't take umbrage at your comment. I thought you were talking to me, though, so that's a bit confusing.

[Tenlaar]

What is happening now is a full-blown smear campaign against a sitting President.

It's not a "smear campaign" if they are talking about things that he actually did.

[Thondalar]

It's not a "smear campaign" if they are talking about things that he actually did.

If it were as simple as that, you'd be right.

You know its not.

[drauz]

Lord, I remember when conservatives used to be patriotic.

https://media.giphy.com/media/DagG1XdR1c1lm/giphy.gif

I remember when liberals could be taken seriously and didn't think mayonnaise was a gender.

[time4fun]

https://media.giphy.com/media/DagG1XdR1c1lm/giphy.gif

I remember when liberals could be taken seriously and didn't think mayonnaise was a gender.

"and didn't think mayonnaise was a gender"

Sorry, was there something in there that we should be taking seriously?

[time4fun]

If it were as simple as that, you'd be right.

You know its not.

Yeah it actually is.

And you do realize that you are actually supporting the notion that if the press expresses an opinion that isn't favorable to the President, that President then has the right to try to punish them? Do you understand why a free press is so critical to a democracy? Do you understand why other modern Presidents have had the good sense not to go near this kind of territory?

Seriously.

[drauz]

"and didn't think mayonnaise was a gender"

Sorry, was there something in there that we should be taking seriously?

About as seriously as the comment I quoted.

[Tgo01]

Just in case time4fun missed it.


You're absolutely right.

Let's look up what the word "abridge" means:

curtail (rights or privileges).

So let's start the debate here; which rights of the press were curtailed with this decision?

[drauz]

Yeah it actually is.

And you do realize that you are actually supporting the notion that if the press expresses an opinion that isn't favorable to the President, that President then has the right to try to punish them? Do you understand why a free press is so critical to a democracy? Do you understand why other modern Presidents have had the good sense not to go near this kind of territory?

Seriously.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1


The campaign says that a limited number of seats forced it to make the tough decision of which journalists would be permitted to follow the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four days of the campaign, but the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board.

Yeah, never been done before... Except from the last president... but we won't count him.

[Tgo01]

Yeah it actually is.

And you do realize that you are actually supporting the notion that if the press expresses an opinion that isn't favorable to the President, that President then has the right to try to punish them? Do you understand why a free press is so critical to a democracy? Do you understand why other modern Presidents have had the good sense not to go near this kind of territory?

Seriously.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-media-tour-include-fox-news/story?id=8621065


As President Barack Obama goes on an unprecedented presidential blitz of media appearances, the White House is in a war of words with the network that did not get an interview: Fox.

"We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told ABC News.


The president's week-long media blitz has left no other network behind. The president has appeared on CBS's "60 Minutes," Bloomberg and CNBC and will appear on five public affairs talk shows on Sunday: ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," CBS's "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press," CNN's "State of the Union" and Univision's "Al Punto, con Jorge Ramos." And he's doing CBS' "Late Night with David Letterman" on Monday.

The White House suggests Wallace is whining about not getting an interview.

"Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again," Earnest said. "Not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon."

But you've never let facts prevent you from spewing bullshit before, why start now?!

[Parkbandit]

https://media.giphy.com/media/DagG1XdR1c1lm/giphy.gif

I remember when liberals could be taken seriously and didn't think mayonnaise was a gender.

No liberal would self identify as mayonnaise.. it's white.

You're so fucking stupid.

[drauz]

No liberal would self identify as mayonnaise.. it's white.

You're so fucking stupid.

Lol, truth. I only used that cause of something I saw on imgur.com this morning. Where someone was defending mayonnaise as a gender.

[Thondalar]

Yeah it actually is.

And you do realize that you are actually supporting the notion that if the press expresses an opinion that isn't favorable to the President, that President then has the right to try to punish them?

I'm supporting the notion that the President has the right to invite whomever he wants to his pressers.


Do you understand why a free press is so critical to a democracy?

I do...apparently more than you. You've lived such a privileged life that you don't understand what you're actually saying, like so many ignorant lefties. Whether its Chris Cuomo comparing "fake news" to "nigger" (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/02/cnn-anchor-apologizes-for-comparing-fake-news-insult-to-the-n-word-234864), or countless comparing 9/11 to Trump winning (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/11/09/donald-trump-9-11-election-comparisons/)...the derp is simply astounding.

I like how you champion the Constitutional Cause when you feel it benefits you, but don't seem to comprehend that it benefits ALL of us, ALL of the time, and should be supported all of the time...not just when it is convenient for you.


Do you understand why other modern Presidents have had the good sense not to go near this kind of territory?

A few others have already posted links countering that bit of ignorance. I'm sure you really don't know what all has happened, because you only pay attention to the outlets you agree with...they're not likely to report things they don't want you to hear.

I'd also reiterate my previous point that, in the last 30 years that I've been a 1st-hand consumer of news, I've NEVER seen such a hostile environment for a sitting President. Trump is unconventional, and the modern landscape is unconventional...to attempt to compare past to present in any way is a fool's errand.

I already stated that any actual attempt to curtail the media via law or executive action would not be acceptable. This is a perfect example of the out-of-control hyperbole of the modern left, and why nobody takes you guys seriously anymore, other than your own psycophants screaming in a vacuum.

You're losing this fight, badly, on a National level. People like me, who used to be Democrats, aren't anymore, because of idiocy like this.

You're smart enough to understand the difference. I truly believe you are. Take a few deep breaths and let the haze clear.

[Shaps]

Have you been lobotomized? I called you a moron for stating the obvious and acting like it was a keen insight.


What's fun is seeing you get worked up. This has been a productive evening.

[Neveragain]

I can tell you coming from a 3rd generation in the family trade of printing that this is in no way, shape or form an infringement upon freedom of the press. This is a couple of news agencies that went all in on Hillary and lost their White House press access because of it. They deserve this for their extremely biased "news", they, like our government no longer work for the people. They are no longer the filter, too fucking bad, they will have to pay for second hand information.

[Tgo01]

I can tell you coming from a 3rd generation in the family trade of printing that this is in no way, shape or form an infringement upon freedom of the press. This is a couple of news agencies that went all in on Hillary and lost their White House press access because of it. They deserve this for their extremely biased "news", they, like our government no longer work for the people. They are no longer the filter, too fucking bad, they will have to pay for second hand information.

They didn't even lose their White House press access. It was literally one meeting with the press secretary. Maybe it might turn into more in the future, but for now all we are dealing with is an isolated incident.

[Neveragain]

They didn't even lose their White House press access. It was literally one meeting with the press secretary. Maybe it might turn into more in the future, but for now all we are dealing with is an isolated incident.

Oh I understand that, this is the equivalent of a high school newspaper bitching they were not invited to a presidential briefing and screaming "but my rights!".

[drauz]

Oh I understand that, this is the equivalent of a high school newspaper bitching they were not invited to a presidential briefing and screaming "but my rights!".

I am disappointed you gave up the Milo avatar over the controversy. You're letting them win!

[Tisket]

What's fun is seeing you get worked up. This has been a productive evening.

Yes, I was hysterically pounding the keyboard when I pointed out that you are a stupid cunt.

Got me.

[Jeril]

Yes, I was hysterically pounding the keyboard when I pointed out that you are a stupid cunt.

Got me.

I bet that isn't all you were pounding either.

[Donquix]

List of other countries that have denied the BBC access: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Rwanda, China

Congratulations. True paragons of freedom and democracy.

[Methais]

No liberal would self identify as mayonnaise.. it's white.

You're so fucking stupid.

How do you know that the mayonnaise doesn't identify as black?

[Tgo01]

List of other countries that have denied the BBC access: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Rwanda, China

Weird. You don't often think about those countries having their shit together.

[Androidpk]

How do you know that the mayonnaise doesn't identify as black?

I've seen yellow mayo before.

[Donquix]

Weird. You don't often think about those countries having their shit together.

Even a broke clock kicks out libtards twice a day.

[Tisket]

I bet that isn't all you were pounding either.

Maybe I'm pounding something right now.

Stop judging me.

[Androidpk]

http://www.netanimations.net/blue-girls-fingers-on-mouse.gif

[Neveragain]

I am disappointed you gave up the Milo avatar over the controversy. You're letting them win!

Oh, didn't give it up. just changed it because Capitalism is the best system there is you just have to let shit fail to make it work correctly.

[Neveragain]

List of other countries that have denied the BBC access: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Rwanda, China

Congratulations. True paragons of freedom and democracy.

Should every Tom, Dick and Sally have access to every Presidential press conference and should they all be given a turn to ask a question no matter how fucking stupid the question may be?

[Parkbandit]

List of other countries that have denied the BBC access: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Rwanda, China

Congratulations. True paragons of freedom and democracy.

What freedom was denied?

Stop being overly dramatic.

It was petty. It was beneath the Office. But that's about as far is it goes. No one got hurt, except someone's feelings.

Grab a tissue and gain some real life perspective.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe I'm pounding something right now.

Stop judging me.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/external_clips/attachments/79257/original/chinhands-3.gif?1444766396

[RichardCranium]

So let me explain how the law works.

Can you explain to me how the law works regarding aiding and abetting illegal aliens?

[Gelston]

Can you explain to me how the law works regarding aiding and abetting illegal aliens?

No, it is okay to break the law when she thinks it is okay.

[Methais]

So let me explain how the law works.

Can you explain to me how the law works regarding aiding and abetting illegal aliens?

Yes please share your wisdom with us on this subject. I hear it's something you are well versed in.

[Tisket]

Yes please share your wisdom with us on this subject. I hear it's something you are well versed in.

Oh please don't encourage her to post more of her pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

[Methais]

Oh please don't encourage her to post more of her pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

Don't worry, she won't respond because she would be sticking her foot in her mouth, being that she's harboring an illegal and all.

[Androidpk]

Don't worry, she won't respond because she would be sticking her foot in her mouth, being that she's harboring an illegal and all.

Says the person that breaks a federal law himself!

[Jeril]

Maybe I'm pounding something right now.

Stop judging me.

I would have to see it to judge you properly.

[Back]

This administration has been making a direct assault on the first amendment of the constitution. Trump is Putin's puppet make no mistake. The scary thing is some Americans probably like that idea.

[RichardCranium]

This administration has been making a direct assault on the first amendment of the constitution. Trump is Putin's puppet make no mistake. The scary thing is some Americans probably like that idea.

Please elaborate.

[drauz]

Please elaborate.

Mother Jones said so.

[Back]

Please elaborate.

This is an actual commercial that has been running on the Russian network RT.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7K7SaEgB7w

During the Obama administration there was plenty of pro-Putin rhetoric coming from the right. Almost in worship of the guy after he took Crimea.

With the increase in hate crimes over the past year, here and in Europe, it is obvious the nationalist movement is on the rise.

[drauz]

This is an actual commercial that has been running on the Russian network RT.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7K7SaEgB7w

During the Obama administration there was plenty of pro-Putin rhetoric coming from the right. Almost in worship of the guy after he took Crimea.

With the increase in hate crimes over the past year, here and in Europe, it is obvious the nationalist movement is on the rise.

"Obvious"

[Androidpk]

During the Obama administration there was plenty of pro-Putin rhetoric coming from the right. Almost in worship of the guy after he took Crimea.


Really? Got a source for this statement?

[Kembal]

It was petty, not illegal. And when Obama tried to do it to Fox, CNN and others protested as well, so in this sense the media has been consistent on access.

The other thing is this: they canceled the on-camera daily briefing in order to hold a selective off-camera briefing. That's just straight up terrible, and doesn't portend well for transparency. (That's not to say admins didn't do selective off-camera briefings before - they did - but they also did the on-camera daily briefing. The selective briefings were additional.)

It's not like the Trump Administration press operation has been completely awful - the new innovation of using Skype so local reporters outside of DC can ask questions is actually pretty impressive - but stuff like this isn't good.

I also consider it moronic, because they specifically locked out the news orgs that are following the Trump-Russia connections - I can't think of a better way to signal there's something to the story than doing that.

[Androidpk]

because they specifically locked out the news orgs that are following the Trump-Russia connections

Purely coincidental I'm sure!

[Tgo01]

I also consider it moronic, because they specifically locked out the news orgs that are following the Trump-Russia connections

This seems like pure speculation.

Reuters, ABC, Wall Street Journal, AP, and Time magazine were also invited to the meeting, you're telling me none of them are following up on the major "scandal" of Trump-Russia connections?

[Kembal]

This seems like pure speculation.

Reuters, ABC, Wall Street Journal, AP, and Time magazine were also invited to the meeting, you're telling me none of them are following up on the major "scandal" of Trump-Russia connections?

AP might've broken one story on Flynn. The rest of them haven't broken a story on the topic prior to Friday, from what I remember.

[Parkbandit]

This is an actual commercial that has been running on the Russian network RT.

During the Obama administration there was plenty of pro-Putin rhetoric coming from the right. Almost in worship of the guy after he took Crimea.

With the increase in hate crimes over the past year, here and in Europe, it is obvious the nationalist movement is on the rise.

Was this before or after this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE

[Parkbandit]

Or this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HNFJyZCJDY

So weird I don't remember your outcry during these events with Russia.

[Donquix]

AP might've broken one story on Flynn. The rest of them haven't broken a story on the topic prior to Friday, from what I remember.

BuzzFeed was the first to report on the Steele Dossier

Times did the Cohen/Sater story

Politico had the blackmail w/ Manafort

CNN had the Priebus angle

Post was Flynn talking sanctions

Theory with BBC was the previous day Trump got into a tiff with their Washington beat guy because the reporter you know...tried to get Trump to answer a question. What a douche.

[~Rocktar~]

https://youtu.be/vACfwwisps8

[Thondalar]

What freedom was denied?

Stop being overly dramatic.

It was petty. It was beneath the Office. But that's about as far is it goes. No one got hurt, except someone's feelings.

Grab a tissue and gain some real life perspective.

This.

Let me know when reporters start disappearing or some law gets passed to Nationalize the media.

[Thondalar]

This administration has been making a direct assault on the first amendment of the constitution.

That you think this is even possible by any action a President can take shows you have zero understanding of your own Constitution.


Trump is Putin's puppet make no mistake.

Why do you think that? Do you have some secret intel the rest of the world doesn't, or are you just repeating something you heard?



The scary thing is some Americans probably like that idea.

NO Americans would like that idea. Some people living in America probably would.

I'm still trying to figure out how Russia became the enemy of the Left. I thought you guys liked Communists.

I know, I know, Russia isn't technically Communist anymore, but...they're a hell of a lot closer to it than the US is. I thought that would be a boon for ya'll, to make buddy-buddy with them. No? Why no?

[drauz]

This.

Let me know when reporters start disappearing or some law gets passed to Nationalize the media.

Or they start asking for the phone records of the AP.

[Thondalar]

Or they start asking for the phone records of the AP.

They can ask for whatever they want.

4th Amendment still applies.

[Tgo01]

They can ask for whatever they want.

4th Amendment still applies.

I think he's referring to the Obama administration getting phone records of the AP without their knowledge, something Democrats didn't give a single shit about. But not inviting every news outlet to a meeting in the press secretary's office? IMPEACHMENT TIME!

[Whirlin]

I think he's referring to the Obama administration getting phone records of the AP without their knowledge, something Democrats didn't give a single shit about. But not inviting every news outlet to a meeting in the press secretary's office? IMPEACHMENT TIME!
Arguably, I don't remember a thread about that on these forums either, so I'm guessing you all weren't too up in arms about it either.

[Parkbandit]

Arguably, I don't remember a thread about that on these forums either, so I'm guessing you all weren't too up in arms about it either.

If that's true, it's even more telling:

When Obama does it:
Democrats: <<crickets>>
Republicans: <<crickets>>

When Trump does it:
Democrats: END OF OUR DEMOCRACY! END OF OUR FREEDOMS!
Republicans: <<crickets>>

[Kembal]

NO Americans would like that idea. Some people living in America probably would.

I'm still trying to figure out how Russia became the enemy of the Left. I thought you guys liked Communists.

I know, I know, Russia isn't technically Communist anymore, but...they're a hell of a lot closer to it than the US is. I thought that would be a boon for ya'll, to make buddy-buddy with them. No? Why no?

Russia is way closer to fascism than Communism right now. They're similar in that they're authoritarian systems, but that's it. Opposite ends of the political spectrum otherwise.