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.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

You're asking me to prove something that is entirely subjective? Right.

He is asked to protect and defend the constitution, correct? Banning media outlets that are holding you to account on the lies you're telling is doing neither.

That, to me at least, shows a lack of respect for his own office.

He didn't ban them, he told them that some of them weren't getting in. Come on now - accuracy in reporting.

It just so happened that the outlets that are critical of him were the ones that were denied entry. It still demeans the office.

Pr4wn wrote:It just so happened that the outlets that are critical of him were the ones that were denied entry. It still demeans the office.

Obviously. And they reported on it for all their readers/audiences to hear/watch.

Grand. Everyone is happy.

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

You're asking me to prove something that is entirely subjective? Right.

He is asked to protect and defend the constitution, correct? Banning media outlets that are holding you to account on the lies you're telling is doing neither.

That, to me at least, shows a lack of respect for his own office.

You made a statement you can't back up..............The above post is better...

Now look if you want to say Trump hates blacks...........You could point to "The central park 5 case" fron the 80s which I imagine no one on here has heard of....

You can chuck his comments against Women against him and make a misogynistic case....

But don't say things like "Trump doesn't respect the office".........You can't back that up.

You're entitled to think it....though .

SecretFly wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:It just so happened that the outlets that are critical of him were the ones that were denied entry. It still demeans the office.

Obviously.  And they reported on it for all their readers/audiences to hear/watch.

Grand.  Everyone is happy.

No, they're not. Stop being a WUM.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

You're asking me to prove something that is entirely subjective? Right.

He is asked to protect and defend the constitution, correct? Banning media outlets that are holding you to account on the lies you're telling is doing neither.

That, to me at least, shows a lack of respect for his own office.

You made a statement you can't back up..............The above post is better...

Now look if you want to say Trump hates blacks...........You could point to "The central park 5 case" fron the 80s which I imagine no one on here has heard of....

You can chuck his comments against Women against him and make a misogynistic case....

But don't say things like "Trump doesn't respect the office".........You can't back that up.

You're entitled to think it....though .

Apologies, chief, but as long as I don't contravene the house rules, I can say what I like.

I gave an opinion which was perfectly valid.

Pr4wn wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:It just so happened that the outlets that are critical of him were the ones that were denied entry. It still demeans the office.

Obviously.  And they reported on it for all their readers/audiences to hear/watch.

Grand.  Everyone is happy.

No, they're not. Stop being a WUM.

Don't try that 'wum' thing.

I say that those media outlets that don't like him or his policies, and want him out as soon as possible ARE happy that he's isolating them as enemies. It helps their cause. It shows, in their terms, his intolerance of alternative opinions. Rather like here at times.
That makes them happy. They have a clear target that they can concentrate on and as he tries to paint them as the 'enemy of the people', they in kind are happy to paint him as the enemy.

I've heard of the Central Park 5 case. I think Trump is guilty of jumping to conclusions based on racial stereotyping.

No, it doesn't make them happy. It gives them an angle, sure, but to suggest that they're happy that they're being excluded from Presidential briefings is ridiculous. You're simply being a WUM by saying "everyone is happy".

Pr4wn wrote:No, it doesn't make them happy. It gives them an angle, sure, but to suggest that they're happy that they're being excluded from Presidential briefings is ridiculous. You're simply being a WUM by saying "everyone is happy".

"I gave an opinion which was perfectly valid."

I suggest they are secretly and not so secretly happy. I'll say that any way I like, it's my opinion.

You're again trying to control language and opinion here - and then you criticise Trump for 'banning' the press?

Quite, but the intention is different. You're saying it with the intention with winding others up.

And comparing me to the POTUS is laughable.

Pr4wn wrote:Quite, but the intention is different. You're saying it with the intention with winding others up.

And comparing me to the POTUS is laughable.

That is absolute Bullschidt. I'm saying it because I believe it. If you don't - fine, that's your right to think otherwise.
But you don't dictate that my view is 'disallowed opinion' because it's designed to irk those who don't believe they are happy.

I believe they are happy - and I'll say so.

Honestly, I wish I could just ban you.

You make this forum a considerably worse site.

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

He is asked to protect and defend the constitution, correct? Banning media outlets that are holding you to account on the lies you're telling is doing neither.

Chuck in attacking his own judiciary for upholding the laws he is trying to break and work round with scant regard.

SecretFly wrote:He didn't ban them, he told them that some of them weren't getting in.  Come on now - accuracy in reporting.

What's the difference?

Pr4wn wrote:

Honestly, I wish I could just ban you.

You make this forum a considerably worse site.

No I don't - and I think my long record in this place says so.

You constantly want to snipe at me because I digress so much from what you think is right in the world. That's what happens - I have a completely different world view to many on here. Isn't that what tolerance of alternative views is all about that I get to express them without constant put-downs and finger wagging?

Yes, you do.

You view yourself as some Che Guevara revolutionary figure but you're just an idiot.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:He didn't ban them, he told them that some of them weren't getting in.  Come on now - accuracy in reporting.

What's the difference?

You try telling me the difference - considering his action with the press are considered to be Hitlerian in terms of suppression of free speech. So you give me your definition of 'ban'.

Pr4wn wrote:Yes, you do.

You view yourself as some Che Guevara revolutionary figure but you're just an idiot.

No I don't. You disagree passionately with my opinions.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

He is asked to protect and defend the constitution, correct? Banning media outlets that are holding you to account on the lies you're telling is doing neither.

Chuck in attacking his own judiciary for upholding the laws he is trying to break and work round with scant regard.

Irrelevant....

Yes, you do. You disagree with others on purpose in order to wind them up. You also phrase your replies in a certain way in order to extract your desired reaction. See the "everyone is happy" remark above.

You're a WUM, plain and simple.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

He is asked to protect and defend the constitution, correct? Banning media outlets that are holding you to account on the lies you're telling is doing neither.

Chuck in attacking his own judiciary for upholding the laws he is trying to break and work round with scant regard.

Irrelevant....

How on earth is that irrelevant??? That is actively disrespecting his own office. It's completely relevant.

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

He is asked to protect and defend the constitution, correct? Banning media outlets that are holding you to account on the lies you're telling is doing neither.

Chuck in attacking his own judiciary for upholding the laws he is trying to break and work round with scant regard.

Irrelevant....

How on earth is that irrelevant??? That is actively disrespecting his own office. It's completely relevant.

It's irrelevant because it doesn't prove that Trump has no respect for the office of President...

He may have little respect for the judiciary however..

Everyone is happy is my opinion. Do we have to go around in circles again?

Trump is happy that his supporters see he is hitting out at news outlets he and they see as having been highly biased during and after the election. And they in turn love that he has openly turned on them as they can capitalise on it with the people that follow their world view.

Everyone is happy.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

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.

I just posted the link for you Jules, whether Obama was or wasn't Pres at the time, doesn't set a good precedence for anyone.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

He is asked to protect and defend the constitution, correct? Banning media outlets that are holding you to account on the lies you're telling is doing neither.

Chuck in attacking his own judiciary for upholding the laws he is trying to break and work round with scant regard.

Irrelevant....

How on earth is that irrelevant??? That is actively disrespecting his own office. It's completely relevant.

It's irrelevant because it doesn't prove that Trump has no respect for the office of President...

He may have little respect for the judiciary..

Is this ignorance on purpose? His duty is to uphold the constitution. Respect for the law is part of the constitution.

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

He is asked to protect and defend the constitution, correct? Banning media outlets that are holding you to account on the lies you're telling is doing neither.

Chuck in attacking his own judiciary for upholding the laws he is trying to break and work round with scant regard.

Irrelevant....

How on earth is that irrelevant??? That is actively disrespecting his own office. It's completely relevant.

It's irrelevant because it doesn't prove that Trump has no respect for the office of President...

He may have little respect for the judiciary..

Is this ignorance on purpose? His duty is to uphold the constitution. Respect for the law is part of the constitution.

You want the second amendment wiped from the constitution...

Respect for the law you mean when Obama accused white cops of a racist attack on a Black Professor and had to apologise ??..

Come on Pr4wn try to be more OBJECTIVE.

Whataboutery again! Bringing Obama into this is irrelevant.

We're talking about Donald Trump and what he did. He openly disrespected the judiciary. You cannot say that this action was "defending the constitution".

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:He didn't ban them, he told them that some of them weren't getting in.  Come on now - accuracy in reporting.

What's the difference?

You try telling me the difference - considering his action with the press are considered to be Hitlerian in terms of suppression of free speech.  So you give me your definition of 'ban'.

Eh?

Classic SF, answer a question with a question. No class.

To me banning them and telling them they cannot get in is the same thing - they were banned from attending. You said there was a difference. I asked what it is?

Pr4wn wrote:Whataboutery again! Bringing Obama into this is irrelevant.

We're talking about Donald Trump and what he did. He openly disrespected the judiciary. You cannot say that this action was "defending the constitution".

No whataboutery at all............

You're throwing jello at the wall...........I'm providing context and rationality..

No, you're not.

Are you saying that DT tweeting his disrespect at the judiciary is upholding and defending the constitution?

Yes or no.

If I were to organise a birthday party, and a stranger knocked on my door wanting to come in and I told them no, have I banned them?

Apples and oranges.

'providing context'

Pr4wn wrote:No, you're not.

Are you saying that DT tweeting his disrespect at the judiciary is upholding and defending the constitution?

Yes or no.

No but I'm suggesting it isn't proof he disrespects the office of President....I can slap my Wife around and still love her!!

15 Presidents before Lincoln upheld the constitution before Lincoln went to war for the 13th amendment..

Should I applaud them for upholding slavery..

You're throwing jello at the wall Pr4wn.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

To me banning them and telling them they cannot get in is the same thing - they were banned from attending.  You said there was a difference. I asked what it is?

Banning them also offers the presumption that there are forceful close-downs, internment, imprisonment of journalists/outlets that do not conform to Trump's opinion and question it. (i.e. like in Russia, Nazi Germany and present day China)
Banning when used in terms of 'suppression of speech' is more than not allowing journalists into a room - it presumes their rights to criticise Trump and his policies have been suppressed. To date, they haven't. They are free to keep mocking and criticising their President.

TopHat24/7 wrote:'providing context'

An apt demonstration of what you offer to this site..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

15 Presidents before Lincoln upheld the constitution before Lincoln went to war for the 13th amendment..

Should I applaud them for upholding slavery..

...

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

To me banning them and telling them they cannot get in is the same thing - they were banned from attending.  You said there was a difference. I asked what it is?

Banning them also offers the presumption....etc

No it doesn't.

Scottrf wrote:If I were to organise a birthday party, and a stranger knocked on my door wanting to come in and I told them no, have I banned them?

EDIT: Thought I was reply to SF

If you had a birthday party for all your classmates at school and then 4 or 5 turned up whose shoes you didn't like and you barred them from coming in - would you not say you banned them from entering?

White House press briefing is attended by the press (clue is in the name). Trump/WH decided the ban certain members of the press from entering (not because they were late, or the venue was over capacity or they weren't following the dress code) because he didn't like the way they reported his actions.  The only differential between those who were ALLOWED to enter and those who were BANNED from entering was their reporting rhetoric (insufficiently pro-Trump).

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

To me banning them and telling them they cannot get in is the same thing - they were banned from attending.  You said there was a difference. I asked what it is?

Banning them also offers the presumption....etc

No it doesn't.

It does!

A ban is a ban, especially when the talk surrounding it is how dangerous it is for the concept of freedoms of speech/freedom of the press.  Do you want me to haul up versions of that narrative from official publications?

So Trump is accused of threatening free speech by disallowing in some News outlets he's at war with for their supposedly/alleged bias.  I say that is baseless as they are free to write about them not being allowed in for an audience with him or his lieutenants - and very free, based on evidence, to mock and criticise him.  They have the freedom to think and say what they think of him.

The assertion was not that Trump was trying to control their thoughts.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:If I were to organise a birthday party, and a stranger knocked on my door wanting to come in and I told them no, have I banned them?

To carry on in your vein, if you had a birthday party for all your classmates at school and then 4 or 5 turned up whose shoes you didn't like and you barred them from coming in - would you not say you banned them from entering?

White House press briefing is attended by the press (clue is in the name). Trump/WH decided the ban certain members of the press from entering (not because they were late, or the venue was over capacity or they weren't following the dress code) because he didn't like the way they reported his actions.  The only differential between those who were ALLOWED to enter and those who were BANNED from entering was their reporting rhetoric (insufficiently pro-Trump).

I might say that they weren't invited. Being denied entry is not the same as being banned IMO.

Now in this case, I would use the term banned if they usually attended a certain event, would have usually expected and had the right to go but were prevented.

The media of course would expect to go to a press briefing but this wasn't a standard press briefing. So you could say that there are new rules and certain people got an invite rather than others but that nobody was banned.

But yeah banned is probably a fair word to use on balance.

And yep maybe the most pointless post I've ever written.

Pr4wn wrote:The assertion was not that Trump was trying to control their thoughts.

The assertion all across the media is that he is trying to suppress their thoughts - make them kowtow to his opinion and wishes to gain access to his inner sanctum.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

To me banning them and telling them they cannot get in is the same thing - they were banned from attending.  You said there was a difference. I asked what it is?

Banning them also offers the presumption....etc

No it doesn't.

It does!

No it doesn't!

SecretFly wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:The assertion was not that Trump was trying to control their thoughts.

The assertion all across the media is that he is trying to suppress their thoughts - make them kowtow to his opinion and wishes to gain access to his inner sanctum.

No, it wasn't.

Yes it was.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:If I were to organise a birthday party, and a stranger knocked on my door wanting to come in and I told them no, have I banned them?

To carry on in your vein, if you had a birthday party for all your classmates at school and then 4 or 5 turned up whose shoes you didn't like and you barred them from coming in - would you not say you banned them from entering?

White House press briefing is attended by the press (clue is in the name). Trump/WH decided the ban certain members of the press from entering (not because they were late, or the venue was over capacity or they weren't following the dress code) because he didn't like the way they reported his actions.  The only differential between those who were ALLOWED to enter and those who were BANNED from entering was their reporting rhetoric (insufficiently pro-Trump).

Funnily enough Obama only banned publications and media that were insufficiently Obama..

You've got nothing to add to this debate...But are desperate to be a part of it..

Certain levels of behaviour are expected of the press...Calling a Wife a hooker and going with unverified stories of prostitutes don't meet that criteria..

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

To me banning them and telling them they cannot get in is the same thing - they were banned from attending.  You said there was a difference. I asked what it is?

Banning them also offers the presumption....etc

No it doesn't.

It does!

No it doesn't!

Jesus. This place.

Okay, ..let's try this for accuracy then. You say "It doesn't". I say "it does"?

Do we agree?