The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well, since the last thread got terminated, I thought I'd open a new one as I think Trump's Presidency is potentially quite an important event (one way or the other), so we should talk about it.

Let's at least try to argue points raised rather than sling any personal insults (not that I mind).

To kick off, what on Earth is that Kellyanne Conway doing promoting Ivanka Trump's fashion line and does the Donald seriously think it's OK to weigh in as he's done??? With any luck, some legal eagles will tear Conway down somewhat and someone (anyone!) will convince Trump to stop tweeting. In fact, does anyone in the Administration know what they're doing? A less suitable press officer than Spicer is hard to imagine but to be fair to the guy, it must be difficult fielding media comments when he's having to make it up on the hoof.

SecretFly wrote:

Hero wrote:Hate breeds hate.

By placing the ban it actually feeds groups like ISIS. They want the West to react, they want the US to build up hatred of Muslims because that in turn feeds their recruitment drive. 
Imagine being an American born teenage Muslim of Syrian parents, seeing family not being allowed into the country and now being looked at constantly with distrust and as a 2nd class citizen.

ISIS (and their backers - not all of them Muslim or Arabic) actively are engaged in creating mayhem in their own sectors of heavy influence (Iraq, Syria, strands of them in African Nations) - with the very design to create mass migration, to create the very tensions that now exist across the Western World.  

You think that ISIS/and other like minded groups haven't used terror for the very purpose of creating biblical levels of displacement and crowding Europe and America with refugees?  No the migrants/refugees are not all hidden terrorists - they don't have to be - the numbers of them that have been migrating have been creating disruption and serious political tension all across Europe and now into America that readily sees what is happening in Europe.

That's the war.  That's another front.  The innocent migrants are being used as a stampede to destabilise Western Nations - and it's working.  The evidence is all around us, that it is working.

Because they worked out that ultimately the people of the West will turn against the innocents, resort to hatred and racism and self-interest? Rather than keeping compassion for the innocents and focussing on ISIS itself? In other words, Trump's attempted ban is good for ISIS and would have been even better for them if it had held up in court.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The US is entirely within its rights to deny entry to innocent people, innocent refugees, innocent asylum seekers etc. based purely on their race or religion. But in doing so, it loses its historical place as a country that is built on and welcomes those people in need of refuge. And also loses much of its moral high-standing in those matters.

So it's proving itself more hypocritical than the EU, who waves the finger yet does the money business with Turkey and Libya to play the anti-innocent refugee, anti-asylum seekers game in an even more underhanded way?

What did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say with such beautiful and pointed brevity?:

" If you [Europeans] committed this big crime (the Holocaust), then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price? This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the US, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country."

Europeans have such a grand old reputation for welcoming the afflicted and an even more notorious old reputation for forcefully displacing and/or killing their own peoples.  More Nations than Germany were anti-semitic in the decades leading to WWII, and what a nice solution it was for many of them that the aftermath of that war saw the creation of a State of Israel (borderless by definition in the Independence Declaration) as a new 'safer' home in the deserts of Palestine.

The US has a right to deny entry and construct its own vetting procedures.  It has the right to formulate its own methods, just as Nations of the EU, and the EU as a bloc, formulate their methods.

So the US lowering it's morals to those of the EU is a good thing?

No, Europe's hypocrisy is not a good thing.  

Controlling immigration, IS a good thing.  

You don't allow mass sudden immigration on the scales we've seen from numerous regions of the world into another settled region and expect harmony, lack of tension, lack of friction, lack of culture clashes and total obedience to the political systems that allowed it to happen.  

It's a dream world to think the migrations of recent years cannot/should not and will not cause major friction that, yes, could lead to the very World war most people think about but are afraid to contemplate.  It's crazy politics to say "we'll be fine, just keep whistling, keep pretending everything is fine in the media and we'll get past this one"

We won't.

SecretFly wrote:It's crazy politics to say "we'll be fine, just keep whistling, keep pretending everything is fine in the media and we'll get past this one"

Yeah, 'cos that's what we're saying

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Because they worked out that ultimately the people of the West will turn against the innocents, resort to hatred and racism and self-interest? Rather than keeping compassion for the innocents and focussing on ISIS itself?  In other words, Trump's attempted ban is good for ISIS and would have been even better for them if it had held up in court.

The People of the West will be human. They'll react. Just like that major reaction when a guy with a comb-over was elected President of the USA - the crying, the Twitter depressions, the screaming at the sky, the protests, the calls for censorship of the internet, Fake News alerts etc etc. Shock - when a system seems to have been suddenly undermined.

Humans are humans. ISIS, (and their backers) know only too well how humans react.

Hero wrote:Hate breeds hate.

By placing the ban it actually feeds groups like ISIS. They want the West to react, they want the US to build up hatred of Muslims because that in turn feeds their recruitment drive. 
Imagine being an American born teenage Muslim of Syrian parents, seeing family not being allowed into the country and now being looked at constantly with distrust and as a 2nd class citizen.

Yes, hate breeds hate, but the will to prevent terrorism by temporarily placing a ban on certain nations, is not necessarily an act of hate. It might be stupid, but not hate.

Yes, ISIS welcome any excuse to drive their recruitment campaign, but then Western nations shouldn't be bullied into cowering from making decisions they believe is in the interests of national security. That's giving in to the threat of terrorism. Terrorism wins.

The US is a democracy, and those legal US immigrants have a democratic right to lobby for change, rather than set out to murder innocent civilians because they're not happy about something. What sort of messed up thinking is that?

"The US, that has granted me citizenship, will not allow my brother in, so I will murder innocent US civilian's".

Is that really the warped mentality of Muslim immigrants? I very much doubt it, and the few nutjobs who do think that way should be locked up.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's crazy politics to say "we'll be fine, just keep whistling, keep pretending everything is fine in the media and we'll get past this one"

Yeah, 'cos that's what we're saying

It's what the 'establishment' bloody well hope. Hope all they like. Their grasp of reality as regards 'whistling as though normality still exits' is like the band playing their violins as the Titanic went down.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Because they worked out that ultimately the people of the West will turn against the innocents, resort to hatred and racism and self-interest? Rather than keeping compassion for the innocents and focussing on ISIS itself?  In other words, Trump's attempted ban is good for ISIS and would have been even better for them if it had held up in court.

The People of the West will be human.  They'll react.  Just like that major reaction when a guy with a comb-over was elected President of the USA - the crying, the Twitter depressions, the screaming at the sky, the protests, the calls for censorship of the internet, Fake News alerts etc etc.  Shock - when a system seems to have been suddenly undermined.

Humans are humans.  ISIS, (and their backers) know only too well how humans react.

They seem to know how to play Trump and his followers to great benefit.

How have they played Trump and his followers? What specifically?

What have ISIS done since Trump became President, that they haven't done when Obama was in office?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Because they worked out that ultimately the people of the West will turn against the innocents, resort to hatred and racism and self-interest? Rather than keeping compassion for the innocents and focussing on ISIS itself?  In other words, Trump's attempted ban is good for ISIS and would have been even better for them if it had held up in court.

The People of the West will be human.  They'll react.  Just like that major reaction when a guy with a comb-over was elected President of the USA - the crying, the Twitter depressions, the screaming at the sky, the protests, the calls for censorship of the internet, Fake News alerts etc etc.  Shock - when a system seems to have been suddenly undermined.

Humans are humans.  ISIS, (and their backers) know only too well how humans react.

They seem to know how to play Trump and his followers to great benefit.

They play everyone... including you...including me.

I even hate using this word ISIS , as though this relatively little terrorist group can suddenly appear on the World Stage and cause a worldwide mental breakdown so skilfully. I don't believe that for a sec, so I'll instead say the people who created and nurture, and fund and assist ISIS (overtly or covertly) - those that have a much longer history of shifting chess pieces across a global board to effect a result of their liking - those guy/groups/organisations know how to play everyone.

Does anyone genuinely believe a six month travel ban for this countries will actually stop a terrorist intent on harming someone within the US if they decided to travel there?
Trump's already said however many Mexicans are sneaking over the border so he needs to build a wall, might as well say 'hey ISIS, we won't let you into our airports but if you fly down to Mexico first you can just drive up'.

Hero wrote:Does anyone genuinely believe a six month travel ban for this countries will actually stop a terrorist intent on harming someone within the US if they decided to travel there?
Trump's already said however many Mexicans are sneaking over the border so he needs to build a wall, might as well say 'hey ISIS, we won't let you into our airports but if you fly down to Mexico first you can just drive up'.

I don't see why it wouldn't? What have you seen in ISIS that make you doubt they're law abiding citizens? Have you seen their tax reports? Criminal records? To my knowledge they also board the planes they blow up with passports, so they obviously do terrorism the right way.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

That was the ONE incident I referred to.  One of them was a born & bred Yank, the other was a Saudi (not one of the 7 banned countries).

White supremacist & applie-pie American Dylan Root killed roughly the same number of people in his domestic terror attack/hate crime.

Appreciate I was too trigger fingered and there have been a few more (e.g. Boston, carried out by two white guys not on Trump's list of banned countries.....).

Err, Orlando? Where 50 ppl died? Fort hood in 2009, 13 deaths, Seattle 2014 3 deaths, Tennassee 2015, 5 deaths,

Also, San B had 14 deaths, Dylan roof killed 9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present

You seem to have an aversion to the facts.

How many of those were carried out by non-US citizens from one of the 7 countries Trump tried to ban?

Orlando, for example, was a born & bred American who was a frustrated homosexual that lost the plot and only created any Muslim terrorist links immediately prior the shooting in search of justification.

The Fort Hood(s) were also born & bred Americans with scant links to anything 'Muslim terrorist'.

It was terrosism, he pledged loyalty to ISIS for god's sake. Fort hood was also a muslim terrorist. Can you please stop being fake news? Orando was done by the son of a muslim immgrant.
Please answer me this question, why does Germany suffer from Islamic terror (both foreign and German born), but Poland does not?

Munchkin wrote:

Hero wrote:Hate breeds hate.

By placing the ban it actually feeds groups like ISIS. They want the West to react, they want the US to build up hatred of Muslims because that in turn feeds their recruitment drive. 
Imagine being an American born teenage Muslim of Syrian parents, seeing family not being allowed into the country and now being looked at constantly with distrust and as a 2nd class citizen.

Yes, hate breeds hate, but the will to prevent terrorism by temporarily placing a ban on certain nations, is not necessarily an act of hate. It might be stupid, but not hate.

Yes, ISIS welcome any excuse to drive their recruitment campaign, but then Western nations shouldn't be bullied into cowering from making decisions they believe is in the interests of national security. That's giving in to the threat of terrorism. Terrorism wins.

The US is a democracy, and those legal US immigrants have a democratic right to lobby for change, rather than set out to murder innocent civilians because they're not happy about something. What sort of messed up thinking is that?

"The US, that has granted me citizenship, will not allow my brother in, so I will murder innocent US civilian's".

Is that really the warped mentality of Muslim immigrants? I very much doubt it, and the few nutjobs who do think that way should be locked up.

It's called the soft bigotry of low expectations, probably the most racist statement on this entire thread.

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

That was the ONE incident I referred to.  One of them was a born & bred Yank, the other was a Saudi (not one of the 7 banned countries).

White supremacist & applie-pie American Dylan Root killed roughly the same number of people in his domestic terror attack/hate crime.

Appreciate I was too trigger fingered and there have been a few more (e.g. Boston, carried out by two white guys not on Trump's list of banned countries.....).

Err, Orlando? Where 50 ppl died? Fort hood in 2009, 13 deaths, Seattle 2014 3 deaths, Tennassee 2015, 5 deaths,

Also, San B had 14 deaths, Dylan roof killed 9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present

You seem to have an aversion to the facts.

How many of those were carried out by non-US citizens from one of the 7 countries Trump tried to ban?

Orlando, for example, was a born & bred American who was a frustrated homosexual that lost the plot and only created any Muslim terrorist links immediately prior the shooting in search of justification.

The Fort Hood(s) were also born & bred Americans with scant links to anything 'Muslim terrorist'.

It was terrosism, he pledged loyalty to ISIS for god's sake. Fort hood was also a muslim terrorist. Can you please stop being fake news? Orando was done by the son of a muslim immgrant.
Please answer me this question, why does Germany suffer from Islamic terror (both foreign and German born), but Poland does not?

You are literally hook line and sinker.

No wonder we got stuffed with Brexit when 'goons' like you are knocking around.

Insightful reply there, Top

Quite a good beat that actually. Toe tapping good.

A crackdown on the free press is always good for a free and democratic society.

Now which leader was it that clamped down on free press and targeted religious minorities and immigrants?

But of course it's wrong to make those comparisons.

Hero wrote:Now which leader was it that clamped down on free press and targeted religious minorities and immigrants?

But of course it's wrong to make those comparisons.

Obama?

And successive British Governments have attempted it?

And is a Press free if it is under strict editorial control? What of the journalists in such an organisation? Are they free to write what they want without it being either scrubbed by an editor completely or reworked to make it more in-house?

JuliusHMarx wrote:A crackdown on the free press is always good for a free and democratic society.

Well, I'm against censorship of any kind - even on 606 . People have to have the right to their opinions and the right to express them and now, in this digital age, the right to publish them - because someone else's rights to do those things protects your right to criticise and disagree with every word they say.

So on the idea of a free press in a democratic society. Absolutely - number one priority.

But that's not to say the press are the most important part of a democracy, only that their role in it, and the rights they have in it, ideally and theoretically protect our rights too to speak our mind. A formal press does not have any rights that a citizen shouldn't have.

So they are not above criticism when they write what they write or refuse to inform fully. They have the right to be biased but we have the right to say it. They have a right to take sides in any battle, but we have the right to say their word isn't law.

So back to Trump. What is he at now? Has he jailed some journalists for giving him a hard time at press conferences? I haven't read the news today. What's the big story of a crackdown?

And btw, when the Press get around to fighting for their rights - as they should if they are being seriously challenged or threatened - they might also find time to defend the rights of Internet users - many of whom are also a version of the Press in their own right with their blogs and YouTube/Facebook channels etc.
Google, Youtube, Twitter, Reddit etc, many of the big social media sites have by now either threatened or have begun manipulating their sites to either ban channels that don't agree with their perspectives on the world or have made it difficult for these internet journalists to stay viewable by people who might want to hear what they have to say.
So if the media and the press want their 'free press' rights, they shouldn't think that their rights have more rights than ours. Just because you are a billionaire media mogul with either a powerful digital company, powerful newspaper or powerful TV network at your disposal, doesn't mean censorship shouldn't be imposed on you as you firmly try to inflict it on others.

SecretFly wrote:So back to Trump. What is he at now? Has he jailed some journalists for giving him a hard time at press conferences? I haven't read the news today. What's the big story of a crackdown?

It's all out there on the internet. I would post the links, but that would be breaking the rules of your game.

Yeah, my game.

The personal again *yawn*.

You really do love my freedom of speech, don't you Julius I know you'd be in my corner if my opinions became official thought crimes.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

That was the ONE incident I referred to.  One of them was a born & bred Yank, the other was a Saudi (not one of the 7 banned countries).

White supremacist & applie-pie American Dylan Root killed roughly the same number of people in his domestic terror attack/hate crime.

Appreciate I was too trigger fingered and there have been a few more (e.g. Boston, carried out by two white guys not on Trump's list of banned countries.....).

Err, Orlando? Where 50 ppl died? Fort hood in 2009, 13 deaths, Seattle 2014 3 deaths, Tennassee 2015, 5 deaths,

Also, San B had 14 deaths, Dylan roof killed 9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present

You seem to have an aversion to the facts.

How many of those were carried out by non-US citizens from one of the 7 countries Trump tried to ban?

Orlando, for example, was a born & bred American who was a frustrated homosexual that lost the plot and only created any Muslim terrorist links immediately prior the shooting in search of justification.

The Fort Hood(s) were also born & bred Americans with scant links to anything 'Muslim terrorist'.

It was terrosism, he pledged loyalty to ISIS for god's sake. Fort hood was also a muslim terrorist. Can you please stop being fake news? Orando was done by the son of a muslim immgrant.
Please answer me this question, why does Germany suffer from Islamic terror (both foreign and German born), but Poland does not?

You are literally hook line and sinker.

No wonder we got stuffed with Brexit when 'goons' like you are knocking around.

Great argument, that sure showed me. Why do you never answer my questions? Is it because you can't? Or that you know the answer would undermine your argument?

Been reading.....

So it goes something like this?

Friday 17th Feb.   Trump tweeted: “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!”

In the immediate aftermath:

New York Times - "President Trump, in an extraordinary rebuke of the nation’s press organizations, wrote on Twitter on Friday that the nation’s news media “is the enemy of the American people.”

The Washington Post - "President Trump is not known for his subtlety. But even by this standard, his tweet Friday night was extreme. Trump called the news media “the enemy of the American People.”

Trump CPAC speech  - "They're very dishonest people. In fact, in covering my comments, the dishonest media did not explain that I called the fake news the enemy of the people. The fake news. They dropped off the word "fake." And all of a sudden the story became the media is the enemy.
They take the word "fake" out. And now I'm saying, "Oh no, this is no good." But that's the way they are.

So I'm not against the media, I'm not against the press. I don't mind bad stories if I deserve them.
And I tell ya, I love good stories"


Is there a Trump-shrug-off-the-shoulders emoticon here?  
He's right.  
They forget important words, like forgetting 'one of the' when saying 'most'.  
Confirmed fake news by 606 standards.

Then he banned some of the 'enemies' from today's White House briefing, but allowed the 'friendlies' in.

Nevermind that Breitbart News nonsense.

This.  You're sometimes good fun when you want to be Julius.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Breitbart is mainstream media, superF. I was told not to trust them by SecretF. You should have seen the piece they did on Ted Heath.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/19/claims-sir-edward-heath-bad person-120-per-cent-genuine-police/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/769201/Tory-PM-Sir-Edward-Heath-120-per-cent-genuine-bad person-Wiltshire-police-Veale-Saville
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mike-veale-convinced-edward-heath-bad person-wiltshire-police-child-sex-abuse-a7588101.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4238188/Sir-Edward-Heath-bad person-says-police-chief.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/edward-heath-police-chief-120-per-cent-convinced-former-prime-minister-was-a-bad person-35466299.html

Breitbart News?  Never read it myself.  Is that why you twisted and turned to avoid my question that night?  You thought I'd catch you reading Breitbart? Is it good stuff?  

Maybe the British Police Chief reads Breitbart.  Maybe he has the tin foil under his cap for safe keeping from the Muslim ray Guns.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Then he banned some of the 'enemies' from today's White House briefing, but allowed the 'friendlies' in.

There was no room for them...Other journalists were let in instead, it's a small room. Do they expect silver plates of Turkish delight on their well-worn Whitehouse front row seats?

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Then he banned some of the 'enemies' from today's White House briefing, but allowed the 'friendlies' in.

There was no room for them...Other journalists were let in instead, it's a small room.  Do they expect silver plates of Turkish delight on their well-worn Whitehouse front row seats?

Why not? Trump has an ottoman full of them.

PS - didn't avoid your question, just had no idea what you were talking about, and you wouldn't explain.

I will not be attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening.

I'm going to add a little perspective here.....

CNN
-----

During the Election the few times they bothered having a Republican on....the sound and picture would regularly fail...Especially when Clinton and Wikileaks was brought up....Usually followed by a smarty line and grin like "Oh dear.... that sucks we have lost him".......

Lost the connection with Sanders too........Never on a Clinton supporter though.

After the Election they led on a story that had Trump telling two prostitutes to soil a bed in a hotel room...Without even trying to verify the story....(Trump does have a family that has to put up with crap like this)

Lead Washington Reporter heckled the President during a Press conference and started screaming out at him as he left..

Refused to publish any polls that showed Sanders or Trump close.

New York Times
-------------------

Lead Washington reporter called Melania Trump a prostitute....

Questioned his sanity and his fitness for office ad nauseum....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know how you guys feel about Trump and I understand it......But Trump is President and it isn't one sided...

Remember that 90% of the media is Liberal and you're getting a one sided view of this..Until they start behaving themselves I agree with Trump...

He's the leader let him get on with the job the voters bestowed on him...I love a free media but they can't just behave how they like.

Would anyone on here have poppped at MIliband for banning the Mail after they said his Father hated Britain...I wouldn't and neither would you if you are honest !!

Oh and Good Morning !!

SecretFly wrote:Nevermind that Breitbart News nonsense.

This.  You're sometimes good fun when you want to be Julius.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Breitbart is mainstream media, superF. I was told not to trust them by SecretF. You should have seen the piece they did on Ted Heath.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/19/claims-sir-edward-heath-bad person-120-per-cent-genuine-police/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/769201/Tory-PM-Sir-Edward-Heath-120-per-cent-genuine-bad person-Wiltshire-police-Veale-Saville
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mike-veale-convinced-edward-heath-bad person-wiltshire-police-child-sex-abuse-a7588101.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4238188/Sir-Edward-Heath-bad person-says-police-chief.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/edward-heath-police-chief-120-per-cent-convinced-former-prime-minister-was-a-bad person-35466299.html

Breitbart News?  Never read it myself.  Is that why you twisted and turned to avoid my question that night?  You thought I'd catch you reading Breitbart?  Is it good stuff?  

Maybe the British Police Chief reads Breitbart.  Maybe he has the tin foil under his cap for safe keeping from the Muslim ray Guns.

OMFG that is the first time in 606 histroy Secret Fly has answered a question

JuliusHMarx wrote:A crackdown on the free press is always good for a free and democratic society.

Obama tried to ban Fox news..

But that doesn't fit your narrative..so we'll forget that....

Plenty of Presidents have banned reporters before......

So we'll forget that too....

For the record plenty of Fox anchors (Smith, Bauer, Wallace.. amongst them)have come out in favor of CNN and the NY times.......and CNN, NY Times reporters etc came out in favor of Fox news when Obama tried to ban them in all fairness..

I like reading the stuff on here and a lot I agree with...but more perspective and idea of history could improve the contributions..

Somewhat lacking at times..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A crackdown on the free press is always good for a free and democratic society.

Obama tried to ban Fox news..

But that doesn't fit your narrative..so we'll forget that....

Did he though? Perhaps that isn't quite what happened, but that doesn't fit your narrative.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Plenty of Presidents have banned reporters before......

And that's a good thing is it? Or is it only a good thing when Trump does it?
Let's say, for example, FDR did it. Is 2017 the right time to condemn that, or should we focus on who actually is the current POTUS, and whether his actions are acceptable?
How many is 'plenty', by the way?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A crackdown on the free press is always good for a free and democratic society.

Obama tried to ban Fox news..

But that doesn't fit your narrative..so we'll forget that....

Did he though? Perhaps that isn't quite what happened, but that doesn't fit your narrative.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Plenty of Presidents have banned reporters before......

And that's a good thing is it? Or is it only a good thing when Trump does it?
Let's say, for example, FDR did it. Is 2017 the right time to condemn that, or should we focus on who actually is the current POTUS, and whether his actions are acceptable?
How many is 'plenty', by the way?

Only one of us knows what certain Presidents did before Trump and what they didn't.

That's the problem...

Because I agree with temporary sanctions on media that lead with invalid Prostitute stories and call his Wife a prostitute.....I'm a Trump fan..

Your post is basically a drive by shot with incorrect and incomplete information...

Simple as.........Hope you're well..

Blimey - don't bother answering my questions then, if you don't want to.

#onlytrussknows.

Ah...new week. I wonder what the Great Leader of the House of Orange is going to be getting up to this week?

I think he intends this to be his Ban Women week. Major announcement on Wednesday - at a rally - in Caesars Palace.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Blimey - don't bother answering my questions then, if you don't want to.

#onlytrussknows.

Obama kicked The Washington Times and New York post reporters off his plane (Not while in the air though)..

Nixon regularly banned the Washington Post.

Now I'm going for some lunch........

He's not had a go at disabled people for a while, they could be in for it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Blimey - don't bother answering my questions then, if you don't want to.

#onlytrussknows.

Obama kicked The Washington Times and New York post reporters off his plane (Not while in the air though)..

While he was President?

http://www.abc10.com/news/local/trump-isnt-the-only-president-to-ban-media-outlets/414543179

There you go Jules.

Trumps still banana's though

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:...Would anyone on here have poppped at MIliband for banning the Mail after they said his Father hated Britain...I wouldn't and neither would you if you are honest !!

Oh and Good Morning !!

Thanks for the context Truss. Yes, I would have had a pop at Milliband if he'd done that, despite the fact The Fail is a nasty, little rag. Sorry to disappoint.

Derbymanc wrote:http://www.abc10.com/news/local/trump-isnt-the-only-president-to-ban-media-outlets/414543179

There you go Jules.

Trumps still banana's though

It's not the same though; Trump banned them in an odd-numbered year and Obama in an even-numbered year.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A crackdown on the free press is always good for a free and democratic society.

Obama tried to ban Fox news..

But that doesn't fit your narrative..so we'll forget that....

Link??

Derbymanc wrote:http://www.abc10.com/news/local/trump-isnt-the-only-president-to-ban-media-outlets/414543179

There you go Jules.

Trumps still banana's though

Couldn't agree more....He's an embarrassment and the sad thing is it was so avoidable.....

Misogyny...........Racism.........Corruption..........Lies....Should have finished his sorry campaign..... But alas...............


Misogyny.......Trump could throw Bill Clinton back on misogyny....and the fact that Hillary took millions from places like Saudi Arabia.....Trump's remarks should have killed him but no.... The Democrats picked the one candidate that could be rebutted.......Doesn't help either bringing out multiple victims the week before the election......Looks like a stunt and the hundreds and thousands of Women and Men that get abused in the US deserve better....

Racism......Trump could point to the 1994 Clinton crime bill that chucked an inordinate amount of blacks in jail....Though it did lower the crime rate.......Three strikes and you're out was always going to be a Godsend to some of the racist elements in the police.....Though I don't think the police are inherently racist like others do.

Corruption.........Trump University should have killed him and to a lesser extent the non release of his Taxes.............But Whitewater...Using their Foundation to pay for weddings.....Pay for play as Secretary of State.........

Lies - Well pick any of about a hundred.....

Any other Democrat and you probably get a landslide......


BUT to defend Trump.........If you're going to say I've been screwing prostitutes and soiling bed sheets..........Or call my Wife a prostitute.......

I've every right to say get lost until you can behave yourself...

Trump has devalued the Presidency..............But he's still President and you respect the office if not HIM..

Why should anyone respect the office if he clearly doesn't?

Respecting it out of some misplaced sense of "duty" is just being a sheep.

Derbymanc wrote:http://www.abc10.com/news/local/trump-isnt-the-only-president-to-ban-media-outlets/414543179

There you go Jules.

Trumps still banana's though

"Nixon banned the Washington Post from the White House after the newspaper broke the Watergate scandal."
Nixon - always a good example for future Presidents to follow.

"In 2008, President Barack Obama booted three reporters from conservative newspapers off his campaign plane."
He was President while still on the campaign before the election? Impressive.

Pr4wn wrote:Why should anyone respect the office if he clearly doesn't?

Respecting it out of some misplaced sense of "duty" is just being a sheep.

...........Why does he not clearly respect it ??

Stick to what you can prove..

Pr4wn wrote:Why should anyone respect the office if he clearly doesn't?

Respecting it out of some misplaced sense of "duty" is just being a sheep.

Correct.

And being a President in some conventional expected sense, nodding to the crap traditions, giving premium spots to the usual circle of media darlings, pampering and schmoozing the entertainers etc etc, is also being a sheep.

Let the critics keep criticising. It's their right. It's a good sport. It's brought life to politics again.