marc9000 writes:
Why would the news media label their own reporting as temper tantrums?
I would expect them to avoid committing something, (to a much larger extent) that they accused their opponents of previously doing.
You provide no evidence of these temper tantrums and are probably just making stuff up again.
Yes, this is true, the proceedings were interrupted and impeded by Democratic senators and protesters. What makes you think the protesters were paid?
See my above reply to Coragpys. Would you not consider incentives that the Woman's March people offer to not be "pay"?
You said the Kavanaugh protesters were paid. Now you're changing the subject. What is your evidence that the Kavanaugh protesters were paid? What is your evidence that participants in the 2017 Woman's March were paid?
Do you have any videos of press anger being displayed during press briefings?
Not that I'm going to take the time to find, but there have been plenty of them. If you don't believe they've ever happened, okay.
I know of only one, when Jim Acosta walked out of the White House press briefing when Sarah Sanders refused to acknowledge that the press is not the enemy of the people and then launched into an attack on Acosta and the press. If you can't provide any evidence of your claim then I assume it is just one more thing you've made up.
Given that there were only three White House press briefings in the month of August, for example, how is it possible for this anger to be displayed (quoting you) "on a daily basis"?
Well they're called "daily press briefings", but I see they're not so daily. They weren't daily with Obama either, but they did happen much more frequently. Josh Earnest undoubtedly enjoyed the love-fests. I don't know why Trump allows them at all now, their purpose should be to inform the news media, and therefore the people, about what's actually going on. They're useless now, just attack shows.
In other words, your claim that anger is displayed by the press at the White House press briefings on a daily basis is just one more thing you've made up.
No one is asserting that the belief that the press is the "enemy of the people" is unique to Trump and his cronies and followers. Dictators and authoritarian rulers have denounced, shut down and put the press under state control since there was a press and long before Trump.
But not in the U.S. Trump is not advocating shutting down, or state control of the press. He has a free speech right to call them on what they do.
On October 17, 2017, Trump tweeted:
quote:
With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!
So Trump has actually advocated shutting down the press.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost," and when he referred to "our liberty" he meant everyone's liberty, not just those of a particular political party.
I don't think he'd be crazy about a press that is so politically one-sided that it advocates "erecting a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers (EPA agents and global warming advocates) to harass our people, and eat out their substance."
Where has the mainstream press ever advocated this complaint from the Declaration of Independence? Wouldn't any writing engaging in such advocacy be in an editorial, not in the news?
Or for advocating "suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."
Where has the mainstream press ever advocated this complaint from the Declaration of Independence?
Nothing is safe from the global warming hoax.
You're not only having trouble mustering evidence for your silly claims, you can't even stay on topic.
marc9000 writes:
Yet the paid protestors at his hearing are far more numerous and disruptive than ever before.
How much are you being paid to lie about this?
quote:
Within minutes of the start of Tuesday’s hearing, several protesters stood up in the back of the room and started yelling, interrupting Grassley’s opening remarks. Additional protests carried on throughout the day’s proceedings. (RELATED: Protesters Immediately Interrupt Second Day Of Kavanaugh Hearing)
While no one knows what will happen the rest of the week, Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn summed up the first day by saying, this is the first confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Justice that I’ve seen, basically, according to mob rule.
We Cut Down All The Kavanaugh Hearing Interruptions Into Just Three Minutes And Five Seconds Of Pure Annoying [Video] | The Daily Caller
So you can name a previous Supreme Court hearing that was more disrupted than this one? You're more informed than John Cornyn?
That there were protesters is part of the public record. No one would dispute that. I was referring to your claim that the protesters were paid. Do you have evidence that the protesters were paid or are you making things up again?
I'm unable to parse this as saying anything other than something absurd. You just said that someone rich could offer a prize to the first news outlet to initiate a Trump removal from office. How would a news outlet do that exactly?
Here's a hint, FAKE NEWS. 91% negative coverage of an administration that has presided over a 4% GDP growth.
You still haven't explained how it makes any sense to claim that news outlets could initiate Trump's removal from office. If you have a problem with Trump's negative coverage I suggest you encourage him to stop plumbing the depths of how much worse than the worst president in history he can be, to stop engaging in pathological lying, to bring the chaos in his White House to a halt, and to stop hiring the worst and the dullest into his administration.
How can you "have no more to say" when you never had anything to say in the first place?
I pointed out the ~Trump "crossed a lot of lines"~ fake news in an earlier message.
I meant you had nothing to say of any substance. You're just throwing out baseless accusations in bunches.
91% negative coverage - the bias in the news against Trump is a simple fact. I have no more to say about it, to someone who denies the obvious.
Your "91% negative coverage" claim comes from the conservative Media Research Center (MRC). Most news reporting about Trump merely relates what he did or said, and if MRC wants to interpret what Trump does or says as negative then so be it.
Anyway, how does one report positively on things like plea bargains and guilty verdicts and denying Hurricane Maria fatalities in Puerto Rico and constantly attacking everyone on Twitter and denigrating American institutions and lying about the Trump Tower meeting and lying about the Stormy Daniels payoff and just lying and lying and lying. His own attorney John Dowd couldn't even get him to stop lying during a mock interview in preparation for an interview with Mueller's team.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)