Home

The silence is deafening
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12, 13, 14  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic       Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Report offensive ad

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


sushilover









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:13 pm
marina wrote:
Just here to point out the obvious, that: (1) Trump is the government; (2) The free speech/free press clauses are not so narrow as to only protect journalists from murder; and (3) courts routinely find government officials to be at risk for chilling people's first amendment rights for a tiny fraction of the comments Trump has made.

Sure. But first you have to persuade me that Trump ever has or ever will have a chilling effect on the press.
Has his words made a SINGLE journalist , like ever, think "oh I'd better not report something because Trump might not like it?"
If anything, it's done the opposite.

So we can argue that Trump was the best thing to happen for freedom of the press! Laughing


Last edited by sushilover on Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:15 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Stressing unity? You mean before or after he threatened the Democrats about some sort of an investigation. Before of after he told the Democrats that he would adopt a "warlike posture" if they investigated him (or, presumably, finally got a hold of his tax returns). Or before or after he made a person attack on Jim Accosta as a "rude, terrible person."


So threatening to pay democrats back for endless investigations with investigations of his own offends you, but the original calls for more investigations and pursuing impeachment made by numerous Democrats right before yesterday’s election did not offend you? I see.
Back to top

amother




Lavender


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:16 pm
Cheiny wrote:
Anyone see or listen to Trump’s press conference?! It was priceless! The vile hateful Jim Acosta is out!

I’ll return the compliment.
Back to top

amother




Mustard


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:16 pm
amother wrote:
Quote:
* Will the Democratic Party leadership get the messages that (a) progressives like Abrams, O'Rourke, and Gillum are unlikely to win beyond the district level; and (b) that stunts like the Kavanaugh hearings don't go over well with the electorate? 


I would be very hesitant interpret the Senate results as a referendum on Kavanaugh.

Bredesen announced that he would have supported Kavanaugh--he lost.

Heitkamp was struggling in the polls even before she announced her opposition.

Jon Tester won reelection despite opposing Kavanaugh, and Trump fought for Montana harder than any other state.

Dean Heller supported Kavanaugh and lost.

Democrats in PA, OH, MI and WI easily won reelection -- no Kavanaugh effect there.

Kavanaugh might have been *a* factor but certainly not a major factor in control of the Senate.

And sometimes elected officials need to take a stance and do what they believe is right, regardless of what it does to their electoral chances.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:20 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
He wants her to be Speaker of the House because she's a divisive person.

But we'll see. Trump usually just can't help himself in terms of his rhetoric. Wasn't it last week that he said that Democrats “run around like antifa” demonstrators in black uniforms and black helmets, but underneath, they have “this weak little face” and “go back home into mommy’s basement.” Nice conciliatory words.

He can't help himself.


Unlike the recent “conciliatory” comments (calls to arms) of Maxine Waters, Hilary Clinton, Corey Booker, Eric Holder and co.? That’s quite a selective memory.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:22 pm
Fox wrote:
Something else most of us apparently agree on, given CNN's ratings! A lot of the blue-checked journos are being awfully quiet about this. I'm thinking Accosta's general lack of popularity among his colleagues combined with his treatment of the female aide may be a tipping point.


Yes, where’s the outrage from Democrats who tout their zero tolerance for abuse of women? Guess it’s ok when the perpetrator is a Democrat...
Back to top

amother




Lavender


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:23 pm
Cheiny wrote:
Yes, where’s the outrage from Democrats who tout their zero tolerance for abuse of women? Guess it’s ok when the perpetrator is a Democrat...

The photos and videos show that the female WH intern grabbed him. Four times. But once again, why bother with the facts.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:30 pm
amother wrote:
The photos and videos show that the female WH intern grabbed him. Four times. But once again, why bother with the facts.


She did not grab him, she was attempting to take the microphone from him to give it to the next questioner, which is her job. Why bother with the facts indeed....perhaps democrats will soon begin hearings into whether the woman should lose her job over gang raping Acosta.
Back to top

amother




Lavender


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:33 pm
Cheiny wrote:
She did not grab him, she was attempting to take the microphone from him to give it to the next questioner, which is her job. Why bother with the facts indeed....perhaps democrats will soon begin hearings into whether the woman should lose her job over gang raping Acosta.

She tried to grab the mic out of his hand, and somehow he’s the one assaulting her. And now we’re onto imaginary hearings about some imaginary crime.

Your level of brainwash is stupendous.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:47 pm
amother wrote:
She tried to grab the mic out of his hand, and somehow he’s the one assaulting her. And now we’re onto imaginary hearings about some imaginary crime.

Your level of brainwash is stupendous.


Projection.
Back to top

Miri7









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:48 pm
amother wrote:
She tried to grab the mic out of his hand, and somehow he’s the one assaulting her. And now we’re onto imaginary hearings about some imaginary crime.

Your level of brainwash is stupendous.


Yes - he literally said "Pardon me, ma'am."

I am exhausted from this circus...
Back to top

amother




Lavender


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:49 pm
Cheiny wrote:
Projection.

I love debating with you. All these brilliant comeback and one liners. Smart as a whip.
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:52 pm
amother wrote:
The photos and videos show that the female WH intern grabbed him. Four times. But once again, why bother with the facts.

No, she tried to take the microphone away. She didn't grab him.

Now, for what it's worth, I don't think the people who are accusing him of "assaulting" her are being entirely fair. Yes, he got a little physical, but it doesn't look premeditated or done with particular malice. It just looks like he's a jerk -- disrespectful to everyone there, most of all his fellow journalists.

There were plenty of journalists who asked tough, aggressive questions, but didn't attempt to hog the mic or ask more than a single question and a brief follow-up. This is not new behavior for Acosta, who nearly always finds a way to make the story about him.



Now, in other freedom of speech news, we have @SmashRacismDC, an Antifa-affiliated "activist" group that organizes on Twitter. They're outside Tucker Carlson's home, chanting "Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night."

Back to top

amother




Lavender


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 10:55 pm
Oh please. He did not get physical. No one, anywhere, not even his supposed annoyed colleagues, are saying he got physical. The only one touting the story is Sarah Sanders, and everyone knows it’s a lie. Trump just needs a reason to revoke his pass and he and his WH are lying about this in order to do that. No person with correct vision is saying he was physical with her.
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 11:31 pm
amother wrote:
Oh please. He did not get physical. No one, anywhere, not even his supposed annoyed colleagues, are saying he got physical. The only one touting the story is Sarah Sanders, and everyone knows it’s a lie. Trump just needs a reason to revoke his pass and he and his WH are lying about this in order to do that. No person with correct vision is saying he was physical with her.



I don't see anyone -- anyone at all -- denying that Acosta touched her. The only debate is whether it was a big deal or not. I'm in the camp that says it wasn't.

No need whatsoever to revoke his credentials for touching the intern. Every reason to revoke them for refusing to yield the mic.
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 11:44 pm
Michael Goodwin in the NYP. You don't have to particularly like Trump to see the problem with Acosta's dramatics.

Quote:
By producing a split decision, the election that was supposed to end all elections turned out to be fairly predictable. But it’s the day after that was unlike any other.

The Republican president, the likely speaker of the Democratic-controlled House and the Senate’s Republican majority leader each started Wednesday by talking about working together to get things done. They talked to each other privately and talked separately in public about what they thought they could accomplish for the country.

For most Americans, that would make for a very good day. Given the overheated environment leading up to the midterms and the fear among many that we are drifting toward an era of disunion and spreading political violence, bipartisan pledges to work together for the common good were like the sudden emergence of a bright candle flickering in the wind.

Alas, it was the last thing some members of the White House press corps wanted, so they tried to snuff it out.

The conduct of a handful of so-called reporters during President Trump’s news conference was disgraceful beyond measure. This is not journalism, this is narcissism.

Naturally, the boorish Jim Acosta of CNN was the instigator. As is his habit, Acosta doesn’t ask questions — he makes accusations and argues. Almost daily, he does it with the press secretary; Wednesday, he did it with the president.

“I want to challenge you,” Acosta began after Trump called on him. Trump realized he’d made a mistake, murmuring, “Here we go” and Acosta didn’t disappoint.

He insisted that despite the president’s use of the word “invasion,” the caravan of Central America migrants “is not an invasion.”

He adopted a lecturing, I-know-best tone to declare that “they’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away; that’s not an invasion.”

Trump’s response should not have been necessary: “Honestly, I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN.”

After more back-and-forth, he called Acosta “a rude, terrible person” and said “CNN should be ashamed of itself.”

That should have been enough — Acosta got the attention he wanted and got Trump’s goat, giving his network video it could make hay out of for days. Besides, there were scores of other reporters raising their hands to be called on.

But Acosta wouldn’t give up the microphone and kept talking over Trump, trying to lob another grenade.

The president, clearly angry now and stepping away from the podium as if he might bolt the room, pointed at him and said forcefully, “That’s enough, that’s enough. Put down the mic.”

Finally, Acosta sat down, then stood up to argue again, interrupting another reporter. That reporter, from NBC, praised Acosta and picked up the baton by making his own accusation disguised as a question. He mentioned Trump’s attacks on Democrats and “asked” the president: Why are “you are pitting Americans against one another?”

Trump, to his credit, actually answered in a substantive way, but that didn’t satisfy because the reporter didn’t really ask a question. He, too, just wanted to make an accusation and argue. On camera.

There was a time not long ago when young journalists were taught not to become the story. Apparently, many news organizations have flipped that lesson on its head.

But we are witnessing something more insidious here than media trash talk. Plain and simple, we are watching expressions of personal hatred.

Yes, it’s true that most journalists lean far left and their bias sticks out like so many sore thumbs. That’s been true for a long time, but political bias is an insufficient explanation for the Jim Acostas of our time.

They hate Trump. They really, really hate him. There’s nothing professional about it.
They are not alone. Take a poll of almost any major newsroom in America and the vast majority of those working there, if they are being honest, will confess they, too, can’t stand the existence or the sound of Trump.

Or try to imagine Acosta and his ilk behaving in similarly hostile fashion toward Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Keep trying, but you can’t imagine it because it never happened. Both of those pols lied to journalists repeatedly, yet you can bet 90 percent still voted straight Democratic.

Even if they didn’t like Obama or Clinton, the political reporters would never dare accuse them publicly of anything, argue with them or interrupt them. Even when skeptical, they were respectful.

Recall how Obama used to spend 10, 15 and even 20 minutes answering a single question — without interruption.

Many in the press corps may have found him overbearingly arrogant. They may have resented the way he looked down on them and bristled at critical stories or tough questions. They knew he started more leak investigations than any other president, and might have feared him because his Justice Department wiretapped a Fox News reporter during a leak case.

But they would never interrupt him or insult him or refuse to give up the microphone.

White House press credentials are not a universal right. There are implicit expectations of proper behavior, and the White House decision to suspend Acosta’s credential is warranted.
Just as Acosta can’t go into a movie theater and yell “fire” when there is no fire, he should not have the right to hijack a presidential press conference to suit his own ego.

It is also long past time for his colleagues, including those from other outlets, to remind him that his shameful conduct is making all of them look bad. More important, scenes like Wednesday’s further erode the public’s already-declining mistrust of the media and fuel resistance to the First Amendment.

The anti-Trump antics are no longer a side show. America has serious problems as well as dangerous enemies, and the mere prospect of Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell working together is the best news we could have hoped for Wednesday.

Instead, it was overshadowed by a few narcissists chasing their own vanity.
Back to top

sushilover









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 11:51 pm
amother wrote:
I love debating with you. All these brilliant comeback and one liners. Smart as a whip.


Using amother to insult another poster is cowardly and mean.
Back to top

itsmeima









  


Post  Wed, Nov 07 2018, 11:56 pm
[quote="Fox"]

quote]

Waitttttttt, did he just say we need the people because we have hundreds of companies moving in Rolling Eyes
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 12:06 am
Or, for those of you who are concerned about the chilling effect of President Trump's treatment of the press, here's Becket Adams in the Washington Examiner, back on September 7, 2018:

Quote:
Former President Barack Obama is right when he says his administration’s attacks on the press can't be compared to President Trump's current crusade against the news media.
The Obama White House was far worse for press freedoms.

The former president spoke Friday afternoon at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, urging students to get involved in the November midterm elections. He dedicated a good deal of his address to drawing contrasts between his administration and the administration of President Trump. It was the regular sort of material from Obama. There was a lot about optimism, hope, change, etc.

The real whopper of a lie didn’t come until later in his address when he criticized Trump for routinely attacking the press.

“It shouldn’t be Democratic or Republican to say that we don’t threaten the freedom of the press because they say things or publish stories we don’t like,” the former president said. “I complained plenty about Fox News, but you never heard me threaten to shut them down or call them enemies of the people.”

This is some grade-A, primo historical revisionism.

When it comes to being anti-media, Trump only talks a big game. And, boy, does he talk. Obama, on the other hand, is a man of action. As president, he did much more than complain about Fox News. His administration spent eight long years curbing the press freedoms of journalists of every stripe. Obama was a pro at this.

Trump’s war against the press is indeed ugly and often over-the-top. But let that criticism come from someone who’s not guilty of far worse.

In 2009, for example, the Obama White House intentionally excluded Fox News’ Chris Wallace from participating in a round of interviews pertaining to the president’s push for healthcare reform. Later that same year, the administration officials tried to block Fox reporters from interviewing “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The White House initially lied about this, and many in the press went along with it. It wasn’t until 2011 that the public learned the truth of the Feinberg episode. An internal email dated Oct. 22, 2009, showed the White House director of broadcast media told Treasury officials specifically, “We’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”

The bigger point is that Feinberg was not the only administration official to have his network appearances limited by the White House.

The Obama White House communications director, Anita Dunn, said at the time, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

That language about "legitimate news organizations" and "opponents" is only different from the things Trump says by degree, not by kind.

In 2010, the Obama administration renewed the bogus Bush-era subpoena against the New York Times' James Risen in a prolonged attempt to determine whether the reporter was the recipient of leaked CIA information. In February 2011, federal investigators were revealed to have spied on Risen. Federal investigators pored over Risen's credit reports and his personal bank records. The feds even tracked his phone logs and movements.

Later, in 2012, Fox was mysteriously excluded from a White House conference call pertaining to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Fox was also excluded from an all-network CIA briefing regarding the attacks.

In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917. And all because the reporter used a State Department contractor as a source for a story. Rosen was also labeled a "flight risk."
The Justice Department seized the records of at least five phone lines connected to Fox News. The federal law enforcement agency even seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents. The FBI also got a warrant to search Rosen's emails from 2010.

In May 2013, the Associated Press revealed that the Justice Department had secretly collected two months' worth of personal and work-related phone calls made by AP reporters and editors.

Federal officials secretly obtained records on incoming and outgoing calls made by specific AP journalists, as well as general news staff, the news group reported, potentially compromising many sources totally unrelated to the investigation. Federal investigators even collected data on calls made by AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery.

In 2014, the Obama administration set the record for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests of any administration. It topped this feat in 2015.

There are only two actions that the Trump administration has taken that can be compared to the Obama-era war on the press. First, the Trump White House barred a CNN reporter in July from a Rose Garden event. Second, the Trump Justice Department seized electronic correspondences between New York Times reporter Ali Watkins and her ex-lover, former Senate Intelligence Committee aide James Wolfe.

Other than the fact that Obama has an extraordinarily ugly legacy of anti-press behavior, he made some great points Friday. He never actually called the news media the “enemy of the people.” He and his lieutenants simply prosecuted and spied on reporters, all while claiming Fox is "an opponent" and not “really a news station.”

Obama is right to draw a contrast between himself and Trump. One of them has been an actual clear and grave threat to the press, and the other one has an orange tan.
Back to top

imasoftov









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 4:21 am
WhatFor wrote:
Yes. Jim Acosta just tweeted that he's now been denied entrance to the White House.

@DanRather - "News the White House pulled Jim @Acosta’s credentials is not an attack on one journalist but all of the press. There should be complete solidarity. This is a moment for any Republican who says they believe in the Constitution to stand up."

https://twitter.com/DanRather/.....9619790848
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12, 13, 14  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 4 of 14 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic       Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Lyrics to song 'children of silence', London boys- Yigal Cal
by amother
3 Mon, Jan 22 2018, 2:31 pm View last post
by iyar
Silence, by shusaku endo
by amother
5 Thu, Mar 16 2017, 9:43 pm View last post
Mayor De Blasio's silence/neutrality re Klinghoffer Opera
by Mevater
4 Mon, Oct 20 2014, 7:36 pm View last post
by Kfar
Do YOU want a minutes silence at the Olympics? 2 Fri, Jul 20 2012, 3:52 pm View last post
Movie/ trapped in silence 1 Thu, Jul 07 2011, 9:32 pm View last post

Jump to:  





Report offensive ad