• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

To the Judge Who Deludes That He Decides Who Does or Does Not Get to Attend WH Press Briefings (1 Viewer)

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Let me put it this way:



Judge acosta.jpg



And a JUDGE < the POTUS...by FAR.
 
Almost 3000 posts of complete idiocy, what's one more eh?:roll:
 
What you're basically arguing is that the President should have the power to block out all press or specifically punish press that ask him critical questions he doesn't like. If Obama had been attacking Fox and other right wing journalists specifically, you'd be throwing a hissy fit.

Whether you like it or not, the press has an important role to play in our democracy and Donald doesn't have a right or the power to silence him. Constitutionality: not for everyone apparently.
 
JUST ONCE

Instead of taking President Von Clownstick seriously, I wish reporters would just ask him very basic questions like:

"What is the capital of Turkey?" ($10 bucks he'd say Istanbul)
"Who won the Battle of Yorktown?"
"What is the square root of 49?"

I have no doubt it would be HILARIOUS!
 
What you're basically arguing is that the President should have the power to block out all press or specifically punish press that ask him critical questions he doesn't like. If Obama had been attacking Fox and other right wing journalists specifically, you'd be throwing a hissy fit.

Whether you like it or not, the press has an important role to play in our democracy and Donald doesn't have a right or the power to silence him. Constitutionality: not for everyone apparently.

How was Acosta silenced ??
 
What you're basically arguing is that the President should have the power to block out all press or specifically punish press that ask him critical questions he doesn't like. If Obama had been attacking Fox and other right wing journalists specifically, you'd be throwing a hissy fit.

Whether you like it or not, the press has an important role to play in our democracy and Donald doesn't have a right or the power to silence him. Constitutionality: not for everyone apparently.

No one is arguing that. The White House should have the ability to toss individual reporters that are behaving inappropriately. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking the questions. At this point, we're talking about one person.
 
How was Acosta silenced ??

Yeah, he wasn't. The problem actually seems to be that we can't get that sumbitch to shut up. Acosta is the guy who cuts into the line all the time, and we all know how much we love people like that. Acosta fervently believe he's cutting and insightful, and we should all shut up and listen to him. That's the problem.
 
What you're basically arguing is that the President should have the power to block out all press or specifically punish press that ask him critical questions he doesn't like. If Obama had been attacking Fox and other right wing journalists specifically, you'd be throwing a hissy fit.

Whether you like it or not, the press has an important role to play in our democracy and Donald doesn't have a right or the power to silence him. Constitutionality: not for everyone apparently.

The whole reason this doesn't violate freedom of the press is that no one (with any sense at all or in office) is making such a crazy claim. That's the strawman being thrown up by people who want this to reflect badly on Trump. People are arguing that when you are invited to a special event in the actual White House, you should behave as well as all the other 49 reporters do. You should have to follow the rules of professional decorum.

Unfortunately, the man elected to run that building and who hosted the press conference can't be held to the same standard. I wish he could. Being a professional and showing respect to the other reporters, the office of the President, the host of the evening and the intern who was asked to try and get the mic when you ignored all that just didn't seem to be too hard for everyone else in that room the last two years.

Since he is still free to trash Trump all day long in print or write whatever the hell he wants, his first amendment is still in tact. CNN has over 50 hard passes and generally has around 20 reporters at each briefing. They can still report and even send someone else to take his exact seat. Their and our first amendment rights are totally solid.

The only thing he has been found to have done wrong so far is failing to write a letter and have a meeting before kicking the belligerent reporter out and telling him to try for a daily pass as he doesn't get the very special privilege of a hard pass anymore. And that's stretched out from a precedent that took 10 years to reach from the 60s and 70s regarding disclosing SS investigation results. They had to claim the hard pass was property taken without due process.

I see SO many people here blatantly ignoring the facts and trying to make this about free press that it bothers me. Luckily, there have been several other people looking to discuss and debate.
 
What you're basically arguing is that the President should have the power to block out all press or specifically punish press that ask him critical questions he doesn't like. If Obama had been attacking Fox and other right wing journalists specifically, you'd be throwing a hissy fit.

Whether you like it or not, the press has an important role to play in our democracy and Donald doesn't have a right or the power to silence him. Constitutionality: not for everyone apparently.

What makes you think we have a democracy?
 
Hey I'm happy. Sara Sanders says "there must be decorum in the WH". So when are you leaving Donald?
 
To the Judge Who Deludes That He Decides Who Does or Does Not Get to Attend WH Press Briefings

Red:
What? Would you please replace "delude" with a verb that is apt so we may know WTH you're talking about.
 
JUST ONCE

Instead of taking President Von Clownstick seriously, I wish reporters would just ask him very basic questions like:

"What is the capital of Turkey?" ($10 bucks he'd say Istanbul)
"Who won the Battle of Yorktown?"
"What is the square root of 49?"

I have no doubt it would be HILARIOUS!

You'd have people yammering on here that he is being set up for ridicule. You have people on here who will excuse anything and everything he does.

But I agree - it would be hilarious!
 
The ruling was on a 1st amendment issue, it was on a 5th amendment issue, which is due process.

To date, the WH journalists behaved fairly appropriately, until Jim over indulged himself in bad behavior. Prior to this a codification of appropriate journalist behavior wasn't necessary, so it didn't exist.

The judges ruling is that such a codification of appropriate journalist behavior needs to exist if you are going to pull press passes based on a journalist's behavior.

Fair enough. Now the administration is formally writing the rules, as journalists can't seem to reign themselves in or control themselves.

Let's hope they write the rules wisely, and it'll be setting a precedent for the future.
 
Yeah, he wasn't. The problem actually seems to be that we can't get that sumbitch to shut up. Acosta is the guy who cuts into the line all the time, and we all know how much we love people like that. Acosta fervently believe he's cutting and insightful, and we should all shut up and listen to him. That's the problem.
You want Acosta to shut up, but many of us don’t. Trump needs to be challenged. And for the record, Acosta was called on by Trump. The only error on Acosta’s part, IMHO, was that he didn’t relinquish the mic when told to do so.

The ruling was on a 1st amendment issue, it was on a 5th amendment issue, which is due process.
To date, the WH journalists behaved fairly appropriately, until Jim over indulged himself in bad behavior. Prior to this a codification of appropriate journalist behavior wasn't necessary, so it didn't exist.
The judges ruling is that such a codification of appropriate journalist behavior needs to exist if you are going to pull press passes based on a journalist's behavior.
Fair enough. Now the administration is formally writing the rules, as journalists can't seem to reign themselves in or control themselves.
Let's hope they write the rules wisely, and it'll be setting a precedent for the future.
I don’t believe there needs to be written rules governing “decorum” at press briefings. They are all adults (supposedly) and should not require a manners do’s and don’ts list. Whatever comes out will certainly be as restrictive as the administration thinks it can get away with, which will likely bring more litigation. As for setting a precedent, if a Dem takes over in ‘21, those rules will be tossed in the dumpster where they belong.
 
Now the administration is formally writing the rules, as journalists can't seem to reign themselves in or control themselves.

It seems (hopefully) that the White House will have the last laugh.

By going to court, Acosta and his ilk have forced the White House to do something that has never been done before: instituting a code of conduct for those "journalists."

Other "reporters" should kick Little Jimmy's butt for bringing that lawsuit.
 
There is no inherent right to a WH press pass. CNN can send another reporter. It doesn't have to be Acosta.
 
It seems (hopefully) that the White House will have the last laugh.

By going to court, Acosta and his ilk have forced the White House to do something that has never been done before: instituting a code of conduct for those "journalists."

Other "reporters" should kick Little Jimmy's butt for bringing that lawsuit.

I remember before Reagan when they all just shouted at the POTUS and he usually picked those who shouted loudest. Reagan got them to shut up and raise their hands. It now seems we need further refinements.
 
You want Acosta to shut up, but many of us don’t. Trump needs to be challenged. And for the record, Acosta was called on by Trump. The only error on Acosta’s part, IMHO, was that he didn’t relinquish the mic when told to do so.

No, I just want him to shut up when he's asked to surrender the microphone to others who also have questions they'd like answered. It's a very simple notion of common civility. If Acosta wants an extended interview with the president, he can ask for one. Of course Acosta doesn't want that - he wants a very public display.
 
You'd have people yammering on here that he is being set up for ridicule. You have people on here who will excuse anything and everything he does.

But I agree - it would be hilarious!

President Stable Genius, here's the bonus question. If you guess the answer correctly you will earn 30 extra minutes of public fawning and adulation and a party size bag of fried chicken gizzards.

The question is: How many feet are in a yard?

President Stable Genius: No one recognizes a trick question better than I do. You just asked a trick question. You want to know how many feet are in a yard, correct?

Yes, President Stable Genius, how many feet are in a yard?

President Stable Genius: Whose yard are you talking about?
 
I remember before Reagan when they all just shouted at the POTUS and he usually picked those who shouted loudest. Reagan got them to shut up and raise their hands.
It now seems we need further refinements.

...Like, if you don't want to treated like a jerk, don't act like one. What a journalist does in private or in their own writing or comment is one thing. What a journalist does in public at such an event is another thing entirely. His "right" to be there is predicated on civil behavior. It's a shame such things have to be codified. One would hope such things were a matter of simple respect for the place, process, and purpose.
 
Let me put it this way:






And a JUDGE < the POTUS...by FAR.

False equivalency, the usual level of hyperbolic bilge that you build an entire thread on.
 
President Stable Genius, here's the bonus question. If you guess the answer correctly you will earn 30 extra minutes of public fawning and adulation and a party size bag of fried chicken gizzards.

The question is: How many feet are in a yard?

President Stable Genius: No one recognizes a trick question better than I do. You just asked a trick question. You want to know how many feet are in a yard, correct?

Yes, President Stable Genius, how many feet are in a yard?

President Stable Genius: Whose yard are you talking about?

:lol: :lol:

And of course his yard is better than anybody else's yard, so his yard would, by far, have the most feet of all, because everybody wants to be in his yard, because it's the best yard, better than all yards everywhere else, and so much so that everybody wants to have his yard, because it has the most feet in it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom