45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2

[Halb]

jsf said:

Will enough public care if they do? There is no trust in them anymore. This isn't the Nixon era where such a scandal will matter as much.

Depends on the subject matter. Trump has already pushed boundaries of what is acceptable beyond the norm, but say of shady dealings with the Russians were to pop up, I reckon that'd sink him.

[Halb]

La Liga said:

ow, what a compelling argument. I'm totally convinced it's "fake news" because you told people to 'shove the science'.

Science is always a dicey topic in PH< one only has to visit the science! forum to see that...

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38663043

BBC article on what has happened thus far.

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

The nearest we have had before to a President who detested the media was Richard Nixon.

If so, Trump isn't Nixon - not even close.

[Eric Mc]

Of course he's not.

But maybe he should study history a bit more closely all the same.

[Countdown]

KrissKross said:

Are you suggesting that that the "elite" in the USA, UK , Europe or anywhere on the planet for that matter have ended up in positions of power solely due to their intelligence?

The morons did so by inheriting money from their parents.

[unrepentant]

Trump is the most thin skinned narcissist in the world. He hates bad press, hates being mocked on SNL and by Colbert and co. That's why he can't control himself and lashes out like an incontinent madman on Twitter. Apart from FOX and the lunatic fringe all the media are finally calling him out and he can't deal with it hence the latest ludicrous antics.

[Halb]

Right, but will people become normalised to this strange state of affairs, or will it escalate to a point of critical mass, some crazy point like the dénouement of a film?
Like Lock Stock?

[jmorgan]

cookie118 said:

jmorgan said:

cookie118 said:

I wonder what the response on here would have been if Obama had banned Fox News from his press conferences....

Was not aware of that, quick google for a look see. But it seems it never came to that as the news orgs said they would work off a pool feed? Interesting that has not happened with trump yet.

Either way, bad move by Obama. Even if Fox were so far right they were falling over.

Obama never did that, but I was wondering what the resident Trumpians/BBC haters would have thought about that move?

Hint-I think they'd react very badly to it. However they are fine with Trump doing it because it 'winds up the lefties' or some other mental gymnastics.

No, he backed down at the tray of the pool feed, I think, if reading the reports are correct? However, if he had, the same as trump is now.

However, I suspect the howls with a far right news org banned would, as you say, be louder. Imagine Brietbart getting the boot from the press pool.

Wonder is there is a list of who is in the pool and for how long?

[Eric Mc]

I think the plan is to keep the media guessing and therefore on the back foot. Not knowing at any time whether the door to the press room is going to be slammed in your face will prove very disconcerting - which is exactly what the Trump team wants.

My hunch is that if this is going to be the norm, most media outlets will start boycotting Trump arranged briefings.

[Hugo a Gogo]

cqueen said:

I don't think you can blame the Trump administration for banning certain media. Look what the BBC are publishing now, absolute tosh, non story, theory, some douche bags opinion. Thus confirming what Trump says all the time about fake news stories...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465

An article in the Magazine section, so not the News section.

Some douche bag, lovely phrase, who is a professor at Stanford. Google Stanford and how it's rated

[Europa1]

Hugo a Gogo said:

cqueen said:

I don't think you can blame the Trump administration for banning certain media. Look what the BBC are publishing now, absolute tosh, non story, theory, some douche bags opinion. Thus confirming what Trump says all the time about fake news stories...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465

An article in the Magazine section, so not the News section.

Some douche bag, lovely phrase, who is a professor at Stanford. Google Stanford and how it's rated

Indeed. I seem to recall UKIP complaining about a candidate for an anti-EU party whose name began with "An", on the basis that they would appear at the top of the ballot paper, whereas UKIP would be at the bottom, so it's not just the "left wing" [insert clich of choice here] BBC who believve in this "absolute tosh" or who say "shove the science".

Edit: slightly off topic, but surely the abbreviation of 'mainstream media' is 'MM',not 'MSM'?

[Halb]

Hugo a Gogo said:

An article in the Magazine section, so not the News section.

Some douche bag, lovely phrase, who is a professor at Stanford. Google Stanford and how it's rated

Stanford isn't a hang-out for douches? Only, from the previous post, I would have thought?

[unrepentant]

Europa1 said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

cqueen said:

I don't think you can blame the Trump administration for banning certain media. Look what the BBC are publishing now, absolute tosh, non story, theory, some douche bags opinion. Thus confirming what Trump says all the time about fake news stories...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465

An article in the Magazine section, so not the News section.

Some douche bag, lovely phrase, who is a professor at Stanford. Google Stanford and how it's rated

Indeed. I seem to recall UKIP complaining about a candidate for an anti-EU party whose name began with "An", on the basis that they would appear at the top of the ballot paper, whereas UKIP would be at the bottom, so it's not just the "left wing" [insert clich of choice here] BBC who believve in this "absolute tosh" or who say "shove the science".

Edit: slightly off topic, but surely the abbreviation of 'mainstream media' is 'MM',not 'MSM'?

There is plenty of evidence that something as simple as that can have an affect. Having said that even as a democrat I'm not convinced that it had any impact on the 2016 result. The Dems made a number of fundamental errors that were masked by inaccurate polling and they failed to react to what they were being told on the ground in certain key states. C'est la vie.

[Europa1]

Halb said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

An article in the Magazine section, so not the News section.

Some douche bag, lovely phrase, who is a professor at Stanford. Google Stanford and how it's rated

Stanford isn't a hang-out for douches? Only, from the previous post, I would have thought?

Sorry,for clarity, my post is previous to yours - is your post directed at me?

[Tryke3]

unrepentant said:

The US born US citizen son of US legend Muhammad Ali was detained at a Florida airport on his return from Mobay recently and questioned about whether he was a Muslim. Disgusting doesn't begin to describe it.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/nation-now/2017...

You do know you are on PH, at least 60% of posters here are happy on getting one over a muslim, any muslim just as long as he is a muslim.

Muslims not enough, try white Australian woman https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/25/au...

I cant wait till a few of the apologists here get a bit of banter thrown up their arse when they visit the usa

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

So - you are completely neutral on Trump.

You have no opinion.

Of course he isn't. It's just his way of avoiding having to confront the question of whether Trump is truthful or not.

Evaluating whether someone is telling the truth or not is straightforward. Trump tells us he is really smart and has a high IQ. So he can hardly be innocently fibbing, because someone that smart knows the difference between truth and falsehoods, and being honest and dishonest.

Not that it matters a great deal if Trump is only objectively dishonest.

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

Eric Mc said:

So - you are completely neutral on Trump.

You have no opinion.

Of course he isn't. It's just his way of avoiding having to confront the question of whether Trump is truthful or not.

Boring erroneous personal angle claptrap. As expected.

I've already said that I regard all politicians and wannabe politicians as liars and even explained why.

[968]

Halb said:

La Liga said:

ow, what a compelling argument. I'm totally convinced it's "fake news" because you told people to 'shove the science'.

Science is always a dicey topic in PH< one only has to visit the science! forum to see that...

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38663043

BBC article on what has happened thus far.

BBC = FAKE NEWS!

Sad!

[Tankrizzo]

Tryke3 said:

You do know you are on PH, at least 60% of posters here are happy on getting one over a muslim, any muslim just as long as he is a muslim.

Muslims not enough, try white Australian woman https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/25/au...

I cant wait till a few of the apologists here get a bit of banter thrown up their arse when they visit the usa

Actually, there are really just a handful of posters you could classify like that.

[Europa1]

968 said:

BBC = FAKE NEWS!

Sad!

Surely you mean: So sad. Really, really sad.