In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 19 2016 12:50 Plansix wrote: Whatever makes those folks feel good. God knows that is what it is all about. Whatever petulant little victory they can squeeze out.
It's about making it clear that Washington state's Democratic party supports Bernie and not Hillary as a party.Which puts pressure on our super delegates not to continue to ignore our caucus results.
On June 19 2016 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote: Just thought I'd mention the Washington state democratic party will be endorsing Bernie Sanders and only Bernie Sanders for president. Press release should be out soon if not already
After his supporters changed the convention rules (which included various missteps, like first having to change it from 50% of all delegates voting yea to 50% of attending delegates voting yea). Which is fine, though the booing Jeff Merkley part wasn't cool.
And in the grand scheme it really doesn't matter because, y'know, he kinda lost the nomination and all the primaries and caucuses already happened.
It wasn't a change of convention rules, it was a change of the wording of the resolution so that it was clear what was intended. The author of it was there and made clear that was the intent. It was a pain in the ass to get it done, but there were no rule changes regarding how it was passed.
Where and when was Merkley booed? If it was for saying to unite behind Hillary I think it's pretty obvious why it would get booed.
It means Washington Democrats won't be responsible for whatever Hillary does, that will be on her and the state parties that supported her. We have made it clear the (people of the) Democratic party of WA have made our choice and it's NOT Hillary.
EDIT: Also it encourages our super delegates to vote with the party they represent instead of against it.
And I said it was fine. But let's not pretend that this is more that theatrics and histrionics at this point since the primary is over and Bernie has been hemorrhaging any leverage he might have going forward. Besides, there was also that nice non-binding primary with 3x the voters, so perhaps the Democrats of Washington think a little differently than you do.
Well it's cool AND it's not what you said it was. But what about Merkley?
On June 19 2016 12:50 Plansix wrote: Whatever makes those folks feel good. God knows that is what it is all about. Whatever petulant little victory they can squeeze out.
It's about making it clear that Washington state's Democratic party supports Bernie and not Hillary as a party.Which puts pressure on our super delegates not to continue to ignore our caucus results.
But no one cares. She won. Its over. But whatever makes them feel important and special. Because god knows no one in the DNC is going to care about this little stunt. This is the problem with some of the people who supported Bernie, they don't know when its time to give up and just talk it out. Its all about grand, public gestures putting the DNC on blast when they should just be talking to people. Or let Bernie do his thing.
On June 19 2016 12:50 Plansix wrote: Whatever makes those folks feel good. God knows that is what it is all about. Whatever petulant little victory they can squeeze out.
It's about making it clear that Washington state's Democratic party supports Bernie and not Hillary as a party.Which puts pressure on our super delegates not to continue to ignore our caucus results.
But no one cares. She won. Its over. But whatever makes them feel important and special. Because god knows no one in the DNC is going to care about this little stunt.
Then they shouldn't be surprised when they don't get the votes from the parts of the Obama coalition she needs to win and are firmly in Bernie's camp at the moment.
They don't get to not care about the cause and then start whining about consequences.
She doesn't need Bernies voters to win. She'll win more respect from republicans and some independents that seriously do not want to vote for Trump. Hillary not caving to Bernie's people earns her more respect in my book at least.
On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote: Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote: W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism. Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
I'd give Trump AZ just knowing Hillary will continue her present course and alienate AZ voters. 45 to 41 Georgia is enough to convince me contested, Michigan is +/- five latest I saw, so I can see it gray at the moment.
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
It sounds like they were listing every outlet who had at least one reporter banned, to gain strength to oppose the move. I'm simply looking at the exact paragraph from your un-linked source.
On June 19 2016 10:18 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Univision still employs Salinas and Ramos. They're what you see when you look up political hacks in the dictionary. Politico is biased in the normal trend these days and I don't recall any specific problems lately. If he's going to prevent any reporters at all from covering his events, the DNC latino mouthpiece is an obvious choice. I'm pretty curious who from Politico was banned.
On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote: Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote: W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism. Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
I'd give Trump AZ just knowing Hillary will continue her present course and alienate AZ voters. 45 to 41 Georgia is enough to convince me contested, Michigan is +/- five latest I saw, so I can see it gray at the moment.
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
It sounds like they were listing every outlet who had at least one reporter banned, to gain strength to oppose the move. I'm simply looking at the exact paragraph from your un-linked source.
On June 19 2016 10:18 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Univision still employs Salinas and Ramos. They're what you see when you look up political hacks in the dictionary. Politico is biased in the normal trend these days and I don't recall any specific problems lately. If he's going to prevent any reporters at all from covering his events, the DNC latino mouthpiece is an obvious choice. I'm pretty curious who from Politico was banned.
I don't care what they report or how they do it
accountability is out the door eh
What is it like being reading impaired? Because that is the only excuse for that interpretation of what I wrote. You do understand that playboy can get press credentials for the White House, right?
On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote: Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote: W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism. Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
I'd give Trump AZ just knowing Hillary will continue her present course and alienate AZ voters. 45 to 41 Georgia is enough to convince me contested, Michigan is +/- five latest I saw, so I can see it gray at the moment.
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
It sounds like they were listing every outlet who had at least one reporter banned, to gain strength to oppose the move. I'm simply looking at the exact paragraph from your un-linked source.
On June 19 2016 10:18 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Univision still employs Salinas and Ramos. They're what you see when you look up political hacks in the dictionary. Politico is biased in the normal trend these days and I don't recall any specific problems lately. If he's going to prevent any reporters at all from covering his events, the DNC latino mouthpiece is an obvious choice. I'm pretty curious who from Politico was banned.
Or you could be a Presidential candidate and not ban reporters like a baby? I hear that is what all the cool candidates have been doing for decades. I don't care what they report or how they do it, its not President's job to decide who gets to report on them. We decide who we read, not the President or anyone running for that job.
Maybe his best move is to let even news outlets totally devoted to crushing his presidential ambitions have their seats in the press box and press conferences. I'm undecided on that one. Hell, maybe we can have Hillary campaign staff ask him questions and cut the middleman. Hell, even calling them "reporters" in these times is a misnomer.
I think the truth is Trump just kind of sucks sometimes. Him essentially putting his hands over his ears and saying "nananana Washington Post" doesn't change that. What it does do is make him look like a child. The move he should make, but seems incapable of, is to become more presidential. But he just can't do it.
For awhile, "there's no such thing as bad press" held true. In a crowded field there were plenty of places to shift blame and attention. However, now Trump has no Jeb? to make his whipping boy, no Lying Ted to beat up, no Christie to make his bitch boy. He has to deal with Hillary Clinton, warts and all.
On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote: Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote: W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism. Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
I'd give Trump AZ just knowing Hillary will continue her present course and alienate AZ voters. 45 to 41 Georgia is enough to convince me contested, Michigan is +/- five latest I saw, so I can see it gray at the moment.
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
It sounds like they were listing every outlet who had at least one reporter banned, to gain strength to oppose the move. I'm simply looking at the exact paragraph from your un-linked source.
On June 19 2016 10:18 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Univision still employs Salinas and Ramos. They're what you see when you look up political hacks in the dictionary. Politico is biased in the normal trend these days and I don't recall any specific problems lately. If he's going to prevent any reporters at all from covering his events, the DNC latino mouthpiece is an obvious choice. I'm pretty curious who from Politico was banned.
Or you could be a Presidential candidate and not ban reporters like a baby? I hear that is what all the cool candidates have been doing for decades. I don't care what they report or how they do it, its not President's job to decide who gets to report on them. We decide who we read, not the President or anyone running for that job.
Maybe his best move is to let even news outlets totally devoted to crushing his presidential ambitions have their seats in the press box and press conferences. I'm undecided on that one. Hell, maybe we can have Hillary campaign staff ask him questions and cut the middleman. Hell, even calling them "reporters" in these times is a misnomer.
Not the presidents job to censor the press the president doesn't like. It decides who gets to be called press. If he doesn't like the questions, don't apply for the job.
On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote: Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote: W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism. Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
I'd give Trump AZ just knowing Hillary will continue her present course and alienate AZ voters. 45 to 41 Georgia is enough to convince me contested, Michigan is +/- five latest I saw, so I can see it gray at the moment.
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
It sounds like they were listing every outlet who had at least one reporter banned, to gain strength to oppose the move. I'm simply looking at the exact paragraph from your un-linked source.
On June 19 2016 10:18 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Univision still employs Salinas and Ramos. They're what you see when you look up political hacks in the dictionary. Politico is biased in the normal trend these days and I don't recall any specific problems lately. If he's going to prevent any reporters at all from covering his events, the DNC latino mouthpiece is an obvious choice. I'm pretty curious who from Politico was banned.
Or you could be a Presidential candidate and not ban reporters like a baby? I hear that is what all the cool candidates have been doing for decades. I don't care what they report or how they do it, its not President's job to decide who gets to report on them. We decide who we read, not the President or anyone running for that job.
Maybe his best move is to let even news outlets totally devoted to crushing his presidential ambitions have their seats in the press box and press conferences. I'm undecided on that one. Hell, maybe we can have Hillary campaign staff ask him questions and cut the middleman. Hell, even calling them "reporters" in these times is a misnomer.
True story. As someone who thinks Trump is wholly unprepared to be president (has even said, through staff at least, he's not that interested in a lot of the work), and someone who thinks he's said some of the most absurd things in modern politics this cycle, the media has done an absolutely terrible job of covering him.
I agree, just cut out the middleman and have HRC's campaign ask the questions directly instead of using "reporters" like a smokescreen.
On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote: Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote: W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism. Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
I'd give Trump AZ just knowing Hillary will continue her present course and alienate AZ voters. 45 to 41 Georgia is enough to convince me contested, Michigan is +/- five latest I saw, so I can see it gray at the moment.
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
It sounds like they were listing every outlet who had at least one reporter banned, to gain strength to oppose the move. I'm simply looking at the exact paragraph from your un-linked source.
On June 19 2016 10:18 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Univision still employs Salinas and Ramos. They're what you see when you look up political hacks in the dictionary. Politico is biased in the normal trend these days and I don't recall any specific problems lately. If he's going to prevent any reporters at all from covering his events, the DNC latino mouthpiece is an obvious choice. I'm pretty curious who from Politico was banned.
Or you could be a Presidential candidate and not ban reporters like a baby? I hear that is what all the cool candidates have been doing for decades. I don't care what they report or how they do it, its not President's job to decide who gets to report on them. We decide who we read, not the President or anyone running for that job.
Maybe his best move is to let even news outlets totally devoted to crushing his presidential ambitions have their seats in the press box and press conferences. I'm undecided on that one. Hell, maybe we can have Hillary campaign staff ask him questions and cut the middleman. Hell, even calling them "reporters" in these times is a misnomer.
You seriously think a person in their role as a public official should get to decide which outlets they talk to based on how favourably they report on him? He can do that all he wants as a private person, but not in office.
And regarding his treatment by the press, how do you expect a national newspaper like the WaPo to respond? "Yes Mr. Trump please tell us about how the Chinese invented climate change to dismantle our industrial sector" ...? This isn't conservative talk radio, although for some reason he's also managed to piss those guys off as well.
That video is painful to watch. I don't care if people are coming out from a KKK meeting, throwing punches for politics goes against everything I believe. How prevalent is this stuff? Because I watch a video like this and I feel like the US is about to burst into civil war, but maybe that's just the nature of combining it all in one clip in a concentrated burst.
That video is painful to watch. I don't care if people are coming out from a KKK meeting, throwing punches for politics goes against everything I believe. How prevalent is this stuff? Because I watch a video like this and I feel like the US is about to burst into civil war, but maybe that's just the nature of combining it all in one clip in a concentrated burst.
It was really popular the last month at Trump rallies. I don't think there are many rallies scheduled in the future for now with primary season over so it might hit a lull for a bit but I guarantee you shit is going to hit the fan as we get closer to the RNC and he starts holding a lot of rallies in the news again.
I believe the protesters are basically justifying it by assuming that the Trump supporters are all hateful racists and bad people 'because Trump is a hateful racist and bad person'.
It's not a bad thing to attack bad people, and just like that you've got Trump protesters in mass violently attacking peaceful Trump supporters at his rallies and thinking it's perfectly okay and reasonable to do so because they don't view the victims as actually being victims but as being bad people.
It got covered very little in the MSM because it went against the 'violent Trump supporters' narrative they've been trying to paint.
That video is painful to watch. I don't care if people are coming out from a KKK meeting, throwing punches for politics goes against everything I believe. How prevalent is this stuff? Because I watch a video like this and I feel like the US is about to burst into civil war, but maybe that's just the nature of combining it all in one clip in a concentrated burst.
well if you want anti-trump paranoia here's a fun one from today
That video is painful to watch. I don't care if people are coming out from a KKK meeting, throwing punches for politics goes against everything I believe. How prevalent is this stuff? Because I watch a video like this and I feel like the US is about to burst into civil war, but maybe that's just the nature of combining it all in one clip in a concentrated burst.
It was really popular the last month at Trump rallies. I don't think there are many rallies scheduled in the future for now with primary season over so it might hit a lull for a bit but I guarantee you shit is going to hit the fan as we get closer to the RNC and he starts holding a lot of rallies in the news again.
I believe the protesters are basically justifying it by assuming that the Trump supporters are all hateful racists and bad people 'because Trump is a hateful racist and bad person'.
It's not a bad thing to attack bad people, and just like that you've got Trump protesters in mass violently attacking peaceful Trump supporters at his rallies and thinking it's perfectly okay and reasonable to do so because they don't view the victims as actually being victims but as being bad people.
It got covered very little in the MSM because it went against the 'violent Trump supporters' narrative they've been trying to paint.
Reminds me of Trevor Noah's take on it where he said that disrupting his rallies is creating the villains for his supporters that will just make them believe Trump's shit more.
On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote: Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote: W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism. Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
I'd give Trump AZ just knowing Hillary will continue her present course and alienate AZ voters. 45 to 41 Georgia is enough to convince me contested, Michigan is +/- five latest I saw, so I can see it gray at the moment.
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
It sounds like they were listing every outlet who had at least one reporter banned, to gain strength to oppose the move. I'm simply looking at the exact paragraph from your un-linked source.
On June 19 2016 10:18 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Univision still employs Salinas and Ramos. They're what you see when you look up political hacks in the dictionary. Politico is biased in the normal trend these days and I don't recall any specific problems lately. If he's going to prevent any reporters at all from covering his events, the DNC latino mouthpiece is an obvious choice. I'm pretty curious who from Politico was banned.
Or you could be a Presidential candidate and not ban reporters like a baby? I hear that is what all the cool candidates have been doing for decades. I don't care what they report or how they do it, its not President's job to decide who gets to report on them. We decide who we read, not the President or anyone running for that job.
Maybe his best move is to let even news outlets totally devoted to crushing his presidential ambitions have their seats in the press box and press conferences. I'm undecided on that one. Hell, maybe we can have Hillary campaign staff ask him questions and cut the middleman. Hell, even calling them "reporters" in these times is a misnomer.
Not the presidents job to censor the press the president doesn't like. It decides who gets to be called press. If he doesn't like the questions, don't apply for the job.
As already said in this thread, they can publish what they like. Censorship isn't even involved.
On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote: Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote: W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism. Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
I'd give Trump AZ just knowing Hillary will continue her present course and alienate AZ voters. 45 to 41 Georgia is enough to convince me contested, Michigan is +/- five latest I saw, so I can see it gray at the moment.
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
It sounds like they were listing every outlet who had at least one reporter banned, to gain strength to oppose the move. I'm simply looking at the exact paragraph from your un-linked source.
On June 19 2016 10:18 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Univision still employs Salinas and Ramos. They're what you see when you look up political hacks in the dictionary. Politico is biased in the normal trend these days and I don't recall any specific problems lately. If he's going to prevent any reporters at all from covering his events, the DNC latino mouthpiece is an obvious choice. I'm pretty curious who from Politico was banned.
Or you could be a Presidential candidate and not ban reporters like a baby? I hear that is what all the cool candidates have been doing for decades. I don't care what they report or how they do it, its not President's job to decide who gets to report on them. We decide who we read, not the President or anyone running for that job.
Maybe his best move is to let even news outlets totally devoted to crushing his presidential ambitions have their seats in the press box and press conferences. I'm undecided on that one. Hell, maybe we can have Hillary campaign staff ask him questions and cut the middleman. Hell, even calling them "reporters" in these times is a misnomer.
You seriously think a person in their role as a public official should get to decide which outlets they talk to based on how favourably they report on him? He can do that all he wants as a private person, but not in office.
And regarding his treatment by the press, how do you expect a national newspaper like the WaPo to respond? "Yes Mr. Trump please tell us about how the Chinese invented climate change to dismantle our industrial sector" ...? This isn't conservative talk radio, although for some reason he's also managed to piss those guys off as well.
First off, Trump's a public official now? I applaud your great expectation that he's about as good as already elected president! As it stands, he's a private individual. Now, since you're talking of him as already elected to public office, he'd better not keep a dozen media outlets banned from his press room.
If you search hard enough, I'm positive you'll find why conservatives have reason to dislike him. Maybe three or four conservative candidates squared off against him in the primaries and were all defeated.
On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote: Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote: W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism. Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
I'd give Trump AZ just knowing Hillary will continue her present course and alienate AZ voters. 45 to 41 Georgia is enough to convince me contested, Michigan is +/- five latest I saw, so I can see it gray at the moment.
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
It sounds like they were listing every outlet who had at least one reporter banned, to gain strength to oppose the move. I'm simply looking at the exact paragraph from your un-linked source.
On June 19 2016 10:18 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote: it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Univision still employs Salinas and Ramos. They're what you see when you look up political hacks in the dictionary. Politico is biased in the normal trend these days and I don't recall any specific problems lately. If he's going to prevent any reporters at all from covering his events, the DNC latino mouthpiece is an obvious choice. I'm pretty curious who from Politico was banned.
Or you could be a Presidential candidate and not ban reporters like a baby? I hear that is what all the cool candidates have been doing for decades. I don't care what they report or how they do it, its not President's job to decide who gets to report on them. We decide who we read, not the President or anyone running for that job.
Maybe his best move is to let even news outlets totally devoted to crushing his presidential ambitions have their seats in the press box and press conferences. I'm undecided on that one. Hell, maybe we can have Hillary campaign staff ask him questions and cut the middleman. Hell, even calling them "reporters" in these times is a misnomer.
True story. As someone who thinks Trump is wholly unprepared to be president (has even said, through staff at least, he's not that interested in a lot of the work), and someone who thinks he's said some of the most absurd things in modern politics this cycle, the media has done an absolutely terrible job of covering him.
I agree, just cut out the middleman and have HRC's campaign ask the questions directly instead of using "reporters" like a smokescreen.
I'm all in favor for reporters to ask him the hard questions and stay on topic. I'm not talking the MSNBC debate (~Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain?) or HuffPo opinion pieces (Yes, violence against Trump supporters is logical). Somebody's gotta press hard to gather if he's thought more about every policy position beyond it's me I got this. By doing this too much, he shook the support of one of his diehard supporters I knew through my job.
If you're one of the two people out of three hundred million to run for the presidential office I guess you should act like a public individual and a politician. It's not like you're a random guy who just accidentally stumbles into the oval office on inauguration day, although that certainly seems to be Trump's vision.
EPT
