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.

The assertion was that he was suppressing their access and exposure to the POTUS.

You can't suppress thoughts.

SecretFly wrote:

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.

Yes, I agree.

Pr4wn wrote:The assertion was that he was suppressing their access and exposure to the POTUS.

You can't suppress thoughts.

You can suppress thought if you make those thoughts 'criminal'. The people that have them still have them, but they better not act on them or speak about them or it's prison/hard labour camp in Siberia or execution. So you can suppress thoughts.
Trump has been accused of threatening the freedom of the press to be critical of him and his policies.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

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.

Yes, I agree.

I'm happy that you're happy. But you see how much space it takes up?

The problem with this subject...........The only headlines read are by the Liberal media....Which is 90% Liberal in reverse to the UK.

Posters have no idea of what Presidents did that came before Trump.........

Harry Truman was probably the most racist President we ever had........Clinton probably the biggest misogynist...Warren Harding the thickest......Obama banned the press and tried to ban Fox news for good....Last I heard they never called Michelle a hooker or said he frequented prostitutes...

I can understand the frustration with Trump I share it.....But more context is needed.

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 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.

No. It was abundantly clear, with nothing left for inference, that what was said was that Trump banned certain members of the press from the WH press briefing.

Emerson poll................

Who do you believe is more truthful ??

Trump 49%...

Mainstream media 39%....

I think they are both full of crap.....

Take care....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

I don't think you've added anything orignal to this site since its inception, doesn't stop you blathering on as self-appointed US expert despite having not lived or worked there for 20+ years.

Christ, I've probably more living & working experience in the US than you this century!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The problem with this subject...........The only headlines read are by the Liberal media....Which is 90% Liberal in reverse to the UK.

Posters have no idea of what Presidents did that came before Trump.........

Harry Truman was probably the most racist President we ever had........Clinton probably the biggest misogynist...Warren Harding the thickest......Obama banned the press and tried to ban Fox news for good....Last I heard they never called Michelle a hooker or said he frequented prostitutes...

I can understand the frustration with Trump I share it.....But more context is needed.

Evidence?

Since you're so keen for others on this thread to back up what they say.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

I don't think you've added anything orignal to this site since its inception, doesn't stop you blathering on as self-appointed US expert despite having not lived or worked there for 20+ years.

Christ, I've probably more living & working experience in the US than you this century!!

You're entitled to your opinion Toppy...

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The problem with this subject...........The only headlines read are by the Liberal media....Which is 90% Liberal in reverse to the UK.

Posters have no idea of what Presidents did that came before Trump.........

Harry Truman was probably the most racist President we ever had........Clinton probably the biggest misogynist...Warren Harding the thickest......Obama banned the press and tried to ban Fox news for good....Last I heard they never called Michelle a hooker or said he frequented prostitutes...

I can understand the frustration with Trump I share it.....But more context is needed.

Evidence?

Since you're so keen for others on this thread to back up what they say.

Give you the shorter version...

Judicial watch October 29 2009 uncovered documents by the Treasury minister to specifically exclude Fox news channel from joining the pool of official reporters......A backlash ensued from reporters of other networks that led to a reversal by the Obama administration....

TopHat24/7 wrote:
No. It was abundantly clear, with nothing left for inference, that what was said was that Trump banned certain members of the press from the WH press briefing.

PR: "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's a constitutional crisis PR was referring to. It didn't mention someone saying a member of the press can't come in - lots of private citizens say that all the time to the press. "You can't come in. You're not welcome here. Stay outside."
PR's comment linked defence of the constitution to the idea that a President would 'ban media outlets' in contradiction of that constitution.
Saying some of them can't come in is not a constitutional issue.

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
No. It was abundantly clear, with nothing left for inference, that what was said was that Trump banned certain members of the press from the WH press briefing.

PR: "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.

Yes, he banned them from attending his press conference, are you still denying this..?????

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The problem with this subject...........The only headlines read are by the Liberal media....Which is 90% Liberal in reverse to the UK.

Posters have no idea of what Presidents did that came before Trump.........

Harry Truman was probably the most racist President we ever had........Clinton probably the biggest misogynist...Warren Harding the thickest......Obama banned the press and tried to ban Fox news for good....Last I heard they never called Michelle a hooker or said he frequented prostitutes...

I can understand the frustration with Trump I share it.....But more context is needed.

Evidence?

Since you're so keen for others on this thread to back up what they say.

Give you the shorter version...

Judicial watch October 29 2009 uncovered documents by the Treasury minister to specifically exclude Fox news channel from joining the pool of official reporters......A backlash ensued from reporters of other networks that led to a reversal by the Obama administration....

So he didn't try to kill of Fox News, just remove their name from the usual list?

Naughty boy, at least it was fairly & democtratically dealt with.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
No. It was abundantly clear, with nothing left for inference, that what was said was that Trump banned certain members of the press from the WH press briefing.

PR: "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.

Yes, he banned them from attending his press conference, are you still denying this..?????

Are you denying you wrote this? "It was abundantly clear, with nothing left for inference, that what was said was that Trump banned certain members of the press from the WH press briefing.

ps - I've never denied he wouldn't let them in to his press conference.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The problem with this subject...........The only headlines read are by the Liberal media....Which is 90% Liberal in reverse to the UK.

Posters have no idea of what Presidents did that came before Trump.........

Harry Truman was probably the most racist President we ever had........Clinton probably the biggest misogynist...Warren Harding the thickest......Obama banned the press and tried to ban Fox news for good....Last I heard they never called Michelle a hooker or said he frequented prostitutes...

I can understand the frustration with Trump I share it.....But more context is needed.

Evidence?

Since you're so keen for others on this thread to back up what they say.

Give you the shorter version...

Judicial watch October 29 2009 uncovered documents by the Treasury minister to specifically exclude Fox news channel from joining the pool of official reporters......A backlash ensued from reporters of other networks that led to a reversal by the Obama administration....

So he didn't try to kill of Fox News, just remove their name from the usual list?

Naughty boy, at least it was fairly & democtratically dealt with.

Horse has bolted Toppy......But nice try !!

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
No. It was abundantly clear, with nothing left for inference, that what was said was that Trump banned certain members of the press from the WH press briefing.

PR: "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.

Yes, he banned them from attending his press conference, are you still denying this..?????

Are you denying you wrote this? "It was abundantly clear, with nothing left for inference, that what was said was that Trump banned certain members of the press from the WH press briefing.

No because it was.

It was said that he banned the press, following the recent event of Trump banning members of the press from his briefing.

You're clearing just choosing to be a complete f*cking tool again, so I'll leave you to WUM others (quite literally) be on my bike.

You want me to be precise and answer questions but can't seem to accept the same demands placed on you, Top.

He didn't ban them from being in anti-constitutional terms, he just didn't let some of them in to 'his' House.

So let's discuss that room, the press briefing room.  
How many press people does it hold?  Are they all 'press' (as in printed media) or are TV networks afforded the same 'rights'?
How big is the USA and how many press organisations exist across the length and breath of that massive country?
Who decides which press organisations get to attend the Press Conferences?
How do they decide which press organisations attend those Press Conferences?

How come some outlets think they have a right always to be there whilst others I'm sure have never been there?
How does that all work out in terms of constitutional rights of the Press/citizens overall?

I know that's a lot of questions - but we have time.  They all don't have to be answered on the one day (and I'm not demanding that Top answers any or all of them).

NBC/WSJ poll...............

Are the elites and the media exaggerating the problems the Trump administration are facing ??

Yes 54%
No 44%

Trump's approval rating....

Approve - 44%
Disapprove - 48% ...

Seen worse....

Are we still believing what polls tell us? Hasn't 2016 at least told us not to believe polls?

Hero wrote:Are we still believing what polls tell us? Hasn't 2016 at least told us not to believe polls?

Valid point......

But it's worth remembering Clinton won the popular vote and most polls had her 4/6 points ahead....She won by 3.

Online polls had Brexit winning...

But polling is only a guide.....

Hero wrote:Are we still believing what polls tell us? Hasn't 2016 at least told us not to believe polls?

Truss believes literally anything a poll he finds says, especially if it suits his vernacular.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:NBC/WSJ poll...............

Are the elites and the media exaggerating the problems the Trump administration are facing ??

Yes 54%
No 44%

Trump's approval rating....

Approve - 44%
Disapprove - 48% ...

Seen worse....

That's the most leading question I've seen since the original wording of the Scottish referendum proposed by Alex Salmond ("do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?").

Rasmussen daily tracker...

Is the US heading in the right direction ???..

27 Feb 2017..

Yes 45 percent.


28 Feb 2016....

Yes 29 percent...

Can't give Trump too much credit for that as the economy has improved and unemployment is down...

But in its own way it is quite revealing.

Obama had poor numbers when it came to security....

They are still historic lows for a president in his first two months.

The word historic is slightly misleading as polling a new President is a relatively modern phenomenon.....

I imagine Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Herbert Hoover, Grover Cleveland and Millard Fillmore would welcome such numbers had it been a less than modern phenomenon...

BUT......You are correct in your statement..

I am, indeed. Thanks.

Pr4wn wrote:I am, indeed. Thanks.

According to polls you don't take seriously.....

Think what we have is a President that is energising his base and nothing more.

Looks like Sessions also spoke with the Russians during the campaign and then lied about it to Congress.

Presumably, as Attorney General, he knows that lying to congress is a felony.

The Dow Jones industrial average is up above 21,000......

Treasury officals predicting 3% growth this year.........Obama managed 1.6% last year..

The biggest surge on the Dow since Coolidge in the 20s..

Better to be lucky than good.

Pr4wn wrote:Looks like Sessions also spoke with the Russians during the campaign and then lied about it to Congress.

Presumably, as Attorney General, he knows that lying to congress is a felony.

Congress question: "If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian Government in the course of this campaign what will you do?"

Sessions response: "Senator Franken, I am not aware of any of those activities.  I have been called a surrogate at a time of two in that campaign, and I did not have communication with the Russians.  And I'm not able to comment."

Congress already had the records that Sessions, as part of his duty as Senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services committee (or which roughly half are Democrats), had met with the Russian Ambassador - as Senator not as Trump campaigner.  Sessions knew those meeting were on record.  Democratic members of the committee were also in attendance and they knew such meetings were on record.  Senator Franken knew those meetings were on record.

But if it's an issue that supporters of a campaign team met with the Russians as part of their duty as senate committee members - then Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal (stanch vocal Clinton supporters) are in trouble - members of the same committee at the time.

Certain Democrats (and indeed some Republicans) have got the panics really bad.  They fear this man Sessions like children fear ghosts and goblins.  I wonder why?

Sessions was a lousy choice...The Russia stuff is icing...more importantly his racial insensitivity and civil rights record should have been a no..no.

Alabama is years behind the rest of the USA.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sessions was a lousy choice...The Russia stuff is icing...more importantly his racial insensitivity and civil rights record should have been a no..no.

Alabama is years behind the rest of the USA.

Inaccurate representation of him Truss. Listen to that Tim Scott I mentioned earlier on another thread. Listen to his speech during Session's nomination stage.

Jeff Sessions is potentially a great choice - IF he carries out his duties according to the wishes of those who voted for Trump and those who expected Trump to choose Sessions as his AG.

He wasn't even very good on Whose Line Is It Anyway?

SecretFly wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sessions was a lousy choice...The Russia stuff is icing...more importantly his racial insensitivity and civil rights record should have been a no..no.

Alabama is years behind the rest of the USA.

Inaccurate representation of him Truss.  Listen to that Tim Scott I mentioned earlier on another thread.  Listen to his speech during Session's nomination stage.

Jeff Sessions is potentially a great choice - IF he carries out his duties according to the wishes of those who voted for Trump and those who expected Trump to choose Sessions as his AG.

That's right, rely on one man's opinion because he happens to be black.  You can safely ignore Session's voting record and past statements, because it's fine, a black man has said that he's not racist.

superflyweight wrote:

That's right, rely on one man's opinion because he happens to be black.  You can safely ignore Session's voting record and past statements, because it's fine, a black man has said that he's not racist.

,
That's right, keep your opinions.  Never doubted a black man from the South, quoting named black people from the South, would fail to turn your colours.  Go ahead and listen to the white men who always know more about black issues than blacks themselves.  Sessions scares the crap out of those people out to take him down - and I hope they have good cause to fear.  The swamp needs draining.

Sessions scares many black people - mainly because of his past record. Those people aren't out to take him down, as such, they would just rather that someone without a racist background had been appointed.
Other people prefer that someone with a racist background was appointed.

Sessions scares white people; the kind of white people that don't care about black people (namely slick senators, media moguls, corporate lobbyists and their quango assorted associates that have been screwing the system for way too long with their multi-linked familial insertions into all things US Government.

OK - so he scares white people and black people. The Russians like him though.

JuliusHMarx wrote:OK - so he scares white people and black people. The Russians like him though.

Not just the russians

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8CxyQx4zE

SecretFly wrote:Sessions scares white people; the kind of white people that don't care about black people (namely slick senators, media moguls, corporate lobbyists and their quango assorted associates that have been screwing the system for way too long with their multi-linked familial insertions into all things US Government.

I seriously doubt that. Unless you mean any whites described as 'liberal' in the U.S. that is.

Or moderate.

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” Sessions replied. “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

This was a lie and this is perjury.

Remember, this guy is leading an investigation into Russian hacking.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Sessions scares white people; the kind of white people that don't care about black people (namely slick senators, media moguls, corporate lobbyists and their quango assorted associates that have been screwing the system for way too long with their multi-linked familial insertions into all things US Government.

I seriously doubt that. Unless you mean any whites described as 'liberal' in the U.S. that is.

No, I mean the people I described.

Pr4wn wrote:“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” Sessions replied. “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

This was a lie and this is perjury.

Remember, this guy is leading an investigation into Russian hacking.

He met with the Russian Ambassador as part of an Official US Senate Committee. Senator Franken is a senator. Senator Franken knew that Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador and he also knew why. Vocal critic of the Trump administration, and indeed Sessions himself, Elizabeth Warren, was a member of the same committee that Sessions was a member of.
Sessions did not meet with the Russian Ambassador outside the remit of his office at the time, did not meet with the Ambassador as a representative of the Trump campaign.

SecretFly wrote:Senator Franken is a senator.  Senator Franken knew that Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador and he also knew why.

What exactly did he know and when did he know it?

SecretFly wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” Sessions replied. “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

This was a lie and this is perjury.

Remember, this guy is leading an investigation into Russian hacking.

He met with the Russian Ambassador as part of an Official US Senate Committee.  Senator Franken is a senator.  Senator Franken knew that Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador and he also knew why.  Vocal critic of the Trump administration, and indeed Sessions himself, Elizabeth Warren, was a member of the same committee that Sessions was a member of.
Sessions did not meet with the Russian Ambassador outside the remit of his office at the time, did not meet with the Ambassador as a representative of the Trump campaign.

This would be the same Senator Franken that described my above quote today as "at best, extremely misleading" and the same Senator that has urged Sessions to urgently clarify these remarks?

Franken is as tribal a Democrat as you're going to get.

I love Franken but he's no one to quote on this.

But I'm with you Pr4wny not only should Sessions go..Should not have been there in the first place...

Trump needs to think these things through...He's not a politician and he is going to have learn fast.

Apparently he's now banned cheese slices because he wants to make America grate again.