Grokmaster
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Messages
- 9,613
- Reaction score
- 2,735
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
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 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.
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.
To the Judge Who Deludes That He Decides Who Does or Does Not Get to Attend WH Press Briefings
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!
Hey I'm happy. Sara Sanders says "there must be decorum in the WH". So when are you leaving Donald?
What makes you think we have a democracy?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Let me put it this way:
And a JUDGE < the POTUS...by FAR.
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?