Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I would think that all journalists have political leanings. If most are Democrats, let in more Republicans. The problem is that the reporters are generally liberal and you might wonder why that would be-if true.The conservatives under Adams tried to abolish the First Amendment and that party died. Now we have Trump making the same noises, and it should worry the Republicans more than the Democrats.
except, no one is talking about "abolishing the 1st amendment" or even limiting it for that matter
I am saying that the people in the media that we know are agents of the democrat party should not be treated as journalist & given press passes in the WH press pool
they could still write "news" articles to their hearts content; but I would shame them for their, what's the word I am looking for? - DEPLORABLE - that's it!
I would shame them for their deplorable conduct; what are they gonna do? say bad things about Trump?
How do you know that, since the RNC's emails weren't hacked? that's part of the point.
First thing I would do would be to revoke CNN's White House access & not allow them to have a representative in the White House press pool. We know for a fact that CNN colluded with the Democrat Party & the Clinton campaign; so that network no longer has any journalistic credibility.
I would follow up by letting the media know that ALL 65 "journalists" that were on the wikileaks list, the ones we know colluded with the Clinton campaign & could be trusted to help shape the democrat narrative, would be banned from the WGite House. No exceptions.
Lastly - I would have THREE press secretaries; Kellyanne Conway (and have her be in charge); Laura Ingraham and Milo Yiannopoulos.
On good days, when the media was behaving, they would get Kellyanne.
On Normal day, when they are just sniping and telling minor lies, Laura would come out (this would be 70 - 80% of the time.
And on REALLY bad days when they are being outrageous with their lies, they would have to deal with the dangerous faggot...
WaPo broke Watergate. Trump doesn't like WaPo. What might get missed if an equally big story about illegal goings on never got covered because the journalists who might sniff it out were all prevented from the White House press corps?
You make the mistake of thinking that I approve of shenanigans like that. I didn't, not even a little bit but please continue to use it as an excuse for Trump to openly attempt it. Guaranteed he will use press access as a weapon and you will find nothing at all wrong with that.The first target of any fascist regime is to attempt to control the media and thus the public narrative.
So the collusion with the Press by the administration and the DNC was in fact a Fascist tactic? Odd that you would admit it. Refreshing but odd.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Fawning over democrats?Can't be done because of the 1st amendment. Put # 1for a reason.
He went around them by using youtube.
Brilliant move thought by some.
so the 1st amendment guarantees anyone with any type of press credentials gets automatic access to the White House?
link?
y'all talk about fascism, but have no interest in combating it when the press is fawning over democrats...
they didn't give any positive free press on Hillary, the only time she made the news was talk about the server, and wikileaks of the DNC hacks, and Comey and the server again, and Bill meeting with the DA on the tarmac, and the Podesta hacks and wikileaks, and whether she was sick and dying or not, and what donald trump said about her and falsely accused her of....and the Clinton Foundation....
Fawning over democrats?Can't be done because of the 1st amendment. Put # 1for a reason.
He went around them by using youtube.
Brilliant move thought by some.
so the 1st amendment guarantees anyone with any type of press credentials gets automatic access to the White House?
link?
y'all talk about fascism, but have no interest in combating it when the press is fawning over democrats...
CAN YOU LIST one POSITIVE that he media ever reported on her....? Did they cover her plans....did they cover her stances and how she had planned to accomplish them? No, they did NOT.
The Washington Post NEVER did an article on thousands and thousands of Muslims celebrating the 9/11 terror attack in New Jersey or New York....WaPo broke Watergate. Trump doesn't like WaPo. What might get missed if an equally big story about illegal goings on never got covered because the journalists who might sniff it out were all prevented from the White House press corps?
3 things, WaPo did "fact checking" on the Muslim's celebrating in New Jersey comments from Trump; claimed they had proved it never happened.
Embarrassingly enough, it turned out that a story about Muslims celebrating in NJ after the 911 attacks was published in their own paper!
So they got to the reporter & he recanted his story, a story he had written 14 years prior! THEN, Trump made fun of the guy for being a lying weasel. What does the media do? They attacked Trump for "mocking the handicapped" when they KNEW that was a lie!
Secondly, I am not suggesting that these outlets be denied a representative in the press pool, just those that colluded with Hillary's campaign
Lastly, press pool briefing are always broadcast live and recorded, so these folks would not be denied access to the info put out at a WH press conference
The Washington Post NEVER did an article on thousands and thousands of Muslims celebrating the 9/11 terror attack in New Jersey or New York....
there were NOT THOUSANDS of Muslims celebrating as Trump claimed and claimed he SAW ON TV protesting.
Why are you saying Trump was correct? He was NOT correct, he LIED, outright lied.
Holy crud Con, can YOU list the positive coverage the press did on Hillary? Can you? Wow!Fawning over democrats?Can't be done because of the 1st amendment. Put # 1for a reason.
He went around them by using youtube.
Brilliant move thought by some.
so the 1st amendment guarantees anyone with any type of press credentials gets automatic access to the White House?
link?
y'all talk about fascism, but have no interest in combating it when the press is fawning over democrats...
CAN YOU LIST one POSITIVE that he media ever reported on her....? Did they cover her plans....did they cover her stances and how she had planned to accomplish them? No, they did NOT.
Holy shit lib, wow.
I agree except that I don't know what "edits" (if any) were actually performed. If it was proforma "vetting," it should have been done on both sides, you're right, but if the Clinton campaign didn't request any rewrites or omissions, then nothing amiss happened.How do you know that, since the RNC's emails weren't hacked? that's part of the point.
the press got hammered for allowing Hillary to edit articles about her; so if any of them had allowed Trump the same courtesy, they would have been quick to point it out
obviously, I don't "know" that for a fact, but I do believe it & am likely correct...
Yes, I remember that too, of the Palestinians....in Palestine....not thousands in New Jersey or New York, but that is what Trump INSISTED was True and to this very day, has NEVER backed down on it or said he was mistaken and confused the two situations....and the press let it pass, with all of his other false statements, it lasted about a day or two till the 'next one in his litany of false statements'' came along....The Washington Post NEVER did an article on thousands and thousands of Muslims celebrating the 9/11 terror attack in New Jersey or New York....
there were NOT THOUSANDS of Muslims celebrating as Trump claimed and claimed he SAW ON TV protesting.
Why are you saying Trump was correct? He was NOT correct, he LIED, outright lied.
there were thousands of Muslims celebrating in Palestine, I remember being outraged when I saw it
There were dozens of Muslims celebrating in NJ; so Trump was correct that the celebrations from Muslims on rooftops happened. No, it was not "thousands"
So, Trump was either embellishing or made an honest mistake in confusing the celebrations; this does not constitute a lie.
You start off calling the op a racist then end with whining about Obama being criticized.Ah, the dreams of the Alt-Right.
Better not happen, buddy. Not any of it. The press is all we've got to keep our leaders in line. Without them we wouldn't know shit, and if you think the Republican/Trump administration is going to be any more pristine than the last one, you are sorely mistaken.
Laura would be fine as press secretary--she's clear, precise and no bullshit. No one gets banned, though. They all get their chance to talk and share their perspective. I listened to Obama et al get bashed for 8 years and you guys can damned well tolerate the criticism, too.
Holy crud Con, can YOU list the positive coverage the press did on Hillary? Can you? Wow!Fawning over democrats?Can't be done because of the 1st amendment. Put # 1for a reason.
He went around them by using youtube.
Brilliant move thought by some.
so the 1st amendment guarantees anyone with any type of press credentials gets automatic access to the White House?
link?
y'all talk about fascism, but have no interest in combating it when the press is fawning over democrats...
CAN YOU LIST one POSITIVE that he media ever reported on her....? Did they cover her plans....did they cover her stances and how she had planned to accomplish them? No, they did NOT.
Holy shit lib, wow.
I think the issue with the Muslim thing was "thousands" via a few dozen. And Trump clearly, and very disgustingly, mocked the reporter's disability without cause. Wish you hadn't brought it up. I hate to recall that about the man who is going to be our President. But anyway,WaPo broke Watergate. Trump doesn't like WaPo. What might get missed if an equally big story about illegal goings on never got covered because the journalists who might sniff it out were all prevented from the White House press corps?
3 things, WaPo did "fact checking" on the Muslim's celebrating in New Jersey comments from Trump; claimed they had proved it never happened.
Embarrassingly enough, it turned out that a story about Muslims celebrating in NJ after the 911 attacks was published in their own paper!
So they got to the reporter & he recanted his story, a story he had written 14 years prior! THEN, Trump made fun of the guy for being a lying weasel. What does the media do? They attacked Trump for "mocking the handicapped" when they KNEW that was a lie!
Secondly, I am not suggesting that these outlets be denied a representative in the press pool, just those that colluded with Hillary's campaign
Lastly, press pool briefing are always broadcast live and recorded, so these folks would not be denied access to the info put out at a WH press conference
wut?You start off calling the op a racist then end with whining about Obama being criticized.Ah, the dreams of the Alt-Right.
Better not happen, buddy. Not any of it. The press is all we've got to keep our leaders in line. Without them we wouldn't know shit, and if you think the Republican/Trump administration is going to be any more pristine than the last one, you are sorely mistaken.
Laura would be fine as press secretary--she's clear, precise and no bullshit. No one gets banned, though. They all get their chance to talk and share their perspective. I listened to Obama et al get bashed for 8 years and you guys can damned well tolerate the criticism, too.
Shove it ya old bat
Ah, the dreams of the Alt-Right.
Better not happen, buddy. Not any of it. The press is all we've got to keep our leaders in line. Without them we wouldn't know shit, and if you think the Republican/Trump administration is going to be any more pristine than the last one, you are sorely mistaken.
Laura would be fine as press secretary--she's clear, precise and no bullshit. No one gets banned, though. They all get their chance to talk and share their perspective. I listened to Obama et al get bashed for 8 years and you guys can damned well tolerate the criticism, too.
And Trump clearly, and very disgustingly, mocked the reporter's disability without cause.
