‘Weirdness’ factor clouds White House correspondents’ dinner weekend

[cubby]

Thanks for the great response. While you are correct that I disagree with most of it, I appreciate the thought and time that went into your post.

Now on to the fun!

There's more than one way to shield a person, as I'm sure you're aware.

Not having media in the room doesn't really shield Trump from opposition, that much is quite obvious. Nor will skipping this dinner. Besides, if this is your way of inaccurately stating that Trump is most shielded ever, I'd mention that Obama also messed with the media in similar fashion (note the word SIMILAR does not mean the SAME). Combine that with the eight-year love fest, downplaying of political scandals, and even going so far as to wish Obama could run for a third term, and it's quite easy to make the case that Obama is/was more shielded than Trump is.

Whether Obama messed with the media or not, he never banned any mainstream established media from any general press conference. I'm sure the Trumpkins (of which I do NOT include you with) will find some exception to this, but the point remains that Obama never did what Trump has already done to the media in the pursuit of avoiding difficult subjects. That doesn't even include the personal attacks Trump has already made on several members of the media and private citizens. Has any President in the past ever done that before?

The mainstream media seems to have little difficulty in finding things to report on that are not favorable for Trump, whether they were included in a press briefing or not. Trump shouldn't exclude them, but that's a different point entirely. With Obama, everything that went wrong was almost always someone else's fault - whether it was government shut-downs, minuscule growth in the economy, poor roll-out of Obamacare (though he did end up apologizing for the inconvenience - to his credit), fast and furious, spying on journalists, the secret Iran deal, race relations being worse than they have been in a decade, the VA issues, Benghazi, being labeled as one of the least transparent white houses in modern history, the IRS targeting conservative organizations, or releasing terrorists from Guantanamo that returned to the war-front - everything was either someone else's fault, whether it was someone on his staff, a former president, or deemed to be not a big deal. The mainstream media has had a hand in downplaying all of the above. If everything I mentioned above had you rolling your eyes or shaking your head, that's proof that the media shielded Obama from a lot of negative press, and they've successfully gotten you to believe it had nothing to do with Obama or gotten you to believe that it wasn't a big deal. Obama and the media even made the ridiculous claim that his administration was scandal-free. (You may conversely believe that my media sources have gotten me to believe everything that happened during Obama's presidency was his fault and IS a big deal. To be fair, there may be some truth to that belief, as well.)

You are listing just about all the "scandals" that Obama suffered through during his 8 years of office. Some of them aren't even scandals, and even you admit that some of those weren't his fault. I can't even begin to imagine how you can see a government shut down being the President's fault. Race relations are Obama's fault how again? I'm not shaking my head because mainstream media protected Obama, I'm shaking it because you have no proof of what you're claiming. I would challenge you to list every "scandal" that Obama had - his presidency is being heralded as the most scandal free, ever.

With Trump on the other hand, everything is going to land on him, and we've seen that already. The difference in accountability is night and day. Please note, I'm not even a Trumpkin. I didn't even vote for him, but I find myself having to defend him because of dishonest claims made against him. Trump not going to this dinner has less to do with shielding himself from the media (I mean, it's a detente, right?!), and more to do with him giving them the middle finger. His distrust and dislike for them isn't exactly unwarranted. Have you seen the report that came out that shows that just 7% of journalists identify as Republicans? They are outnumbered 4:1 by journalists who identify as Democrat. Do you believe this doesn't affect how they report on things? Why would you want to rub shoulders and mingle with the very people who despise you? They'll despise you whether or not you have a dinner with them or not.

What dishonest claims have been made against him? Can you name even one serious allegation that has been proven false? Here is a short list (/snort) of the shit he's waded the U.S. into already, in less that 100 days:

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...-Nine-Weeks-In

Take a look at the yuge amount of scandals and lies/deceits that Trump has already wrought upon the United States.

One thing is for sure, though, Trump will not be shielded or given the benefit of the doubt to the same degree that Obama was. Unless, of course, something radically changes.

Trump has been given more leeway and free press than anything Obama received. While long, your list is short on actual times Obama was "shielded". Trump is in up to his eyeballs not because of a press bias but because of what he's actually done. His actions are his own faults and the press merely reports on what happens.

**Please note I can't possibly post every link that relates, or every video that discussed these topics here.
***Please also note that the argument I am making is that Obama was more shielded than any president I can think of, and I've laid out my case as to why I feel that way
****Please also note that we probably won't come to agree on almost anything, but I felt that your response merited a response
*****Please also note that I tried to stick with sources you would probably "trust" more than others. If a link doesn't seem to correlate with what I wrote, make sure to read the article, and it should become clear how I tied it in with what I typed.

I hear you on these, I read them and I appreciate you saying them.

[unfilteredJW]

Donald Trump won the Presidency. lmao.

As I thought. Just adorable.

[shrunken]

As I thought. Just adorable.

He won. And you won't believe it, but he beat someone that practically anointed themselves to the position over 25 years ago! Crazy, I know. I'll let you get back to posting.

[Derecho]

Whether Obama messed with the media or not, he never banned any mainstream established media from any general press conference. I'm sure the Trumpkins (of which I do NOT include you with) will find some exception to this, but the point remains that Obama never did what Trump has already done to the media in the pursuit of avoiding difficult subjects. That doesn't even include the personal attacks Trump has already made on several members of the media and private citizens. Has any President in the past ever done that before?

No doubt Trump has brought a lot of negative attention onto himself. I won't dispute that. As far as a President personally attacking a private citizen, would you consider calling members of the Tea Party "Tea Baggers" a personal attack? We also know that Obama had private citizens monitored. Maybe you disagree, but that type of attack is far more worrisome than a personal attack.

You are listing just about all the "scandals" that Obama suffered through during his 8 years of office. Some of them aren't even scandals, and even you admit that some of those weren't his fault. I can't even begin to imagine how you can see a government shut down being the President's fault. Race relations are Obama's fault how again? I'm not shaking my head because mainstream media protected Obama, I'm shaking it because you have no proof of what you're claiming. I would challenge you to list every "scandal" that Obama had - his presidency is being heralded as the most scandal free, ever.

Here's where I felt we would disagree the most - you sincerely believe that every scandal I have already listed (and there are more I didn't list) is not a scandal. We disagree on what a scandal is, I guess? To me, I've shown you and proven there were scandals. You don't believe they are scandals. Should I re-link articles showing what the scandals were? Would that make a difference? No, it wouldn't I don't think, because we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes a scandal. To me, whether or not someone is charged doesn't mean there was no scandal. Especially given the fact that the departments that are in charge of prosecution are appointed by the executive branch.

In one of the examples I linked, I've shown that the mainstream media would blame Trump if the government had shut down over the wall. I guess you wouldn't have blamed it on Trump if the government had shut down over funding for the wall? The mainstream media seems to believe a President can cause a government shutdown, so I guess you disagree with that?

I'd argue that a President can easily be blamed for Government shutdowns, especially when it's their policies or unwillingness to budge causes a shutdown. I personally have no problem with a government shut down, just so you know. I don't even view it as a bad thing. My simple point is, a President greatly influences a government shutdown because they are there to persuade congress to pass legislation that aligns with their goals. If that requires a shutdown, then so be it.

Obama's non-negotiation stances were certainly reflected by the democrats in congress. Knowing their President was behind them, they successfully placed all the blame of the 2013 shutdown on the Republicans. To say President Obama in no way influenced how his party acted by publicly laying blame for a potential shut-down and eventual shut-down on the Republicans would be incorrect. In my mind, of course a President influences that, as they should. What they shouldn't do is falsely lay all the blame on the opposing party.

As for race relations, President Obama failed to denounce the Black Lives Matter movement when it turned to violence. He failed to act in Baltimore and made inflammatory comments about race during his time as President. Even if you agree with him about what he said, he was an outspoken voice on race, and his inaction to move on race-rioting or support police with anything other than words is a big way in which he contributed to race relations going down the tube. Those numbers didn't decline on their own, and Obama's actions as President don't point to him being a beacon of unity.

What dishonest claims have been made against him? Can you name even one serious allegation that has been proven false? Here is a short list (/snort) of the shit he's waded the U.S. into already, in less that 100 days:

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...-Nine-Weeks-In

Take a look at the yuge amount of scandals and lies/deceits that Trump has already wrought upon the United States.

There's a running list of lies being told by the media since President Trump took the oath of office. I can't list them all, but feel free to comb through the list here.

I'd say the most dishonest claim being made against Trump (and his team) is that he worked with Russians to get elected. There's been literally zero evidence of that claim, yet it's been talked about for weeks.

Trump has been given more leeway and free press than anything Obama received. While long, your list is short on actual times Obama was "shielded". Trump is in up to his eyeballs not because of a press bias but because of what he's actually done. His actions are his own faults and the press merely reports on what happens.

No question about Trump getting free press. I don't feel my list is short at all on how Obama was shielded. If you believe the list is short, there is nothing I can put in there that will make you think it's long! We'll just have to agree to disagree here, because we disagree on the facts, something that I feel is becoming more common as America becomes more polarized.

The media doesn't just report on what happens with Trump, the focus on it almost to the exclusion of all other coverage. I get why they do it, but the fact that 89% of coverage up to this point has been negative is a good indicator that it's pretty one sided. You may feel he merits that 89% of negative coverage. I personally don't, especially if the media was less biased than it currently is.

I hear you on these, I read them and I appreciate you saying them.

I appreciate your kind and thoughtful responses, as well. Thanks for that. Refreshing to not get into some flame war on the internet.

You've my respect!

[prwraith]

LOL, what I read here is, "the time he broke from what he ran on and said something I happen to agree with, he was Presidential."

Or you know...one of the few times trump has shown compassion for anything that wasn't a business :P

[prwraith]

Labeling your political opinions with your subjective feelings toward a virtue doesn't make your political opinion "Presidential".

Why not elect a robot then, there's no effective difference.

[prwraith]

The point was that you should just be honest and say that he did something you agree with politically.

I didn't actually have an opinion politically on the DACA, having honestly no idea what it was until I read about it in the news. Telling kids they shouldn't fear deportation because of something their parents did though is just being a human being. It has nothing to do with politics for me so much as it has everything to do with being human.

That trump realized not every decision needs to be made via an excel formula is extremely gratifying and shows a president with heart.

You seem hellbent to make it political though.

[cubby]

No doubt Trump has brought a lot of negative attention onto himself. I won't dispute that. As far as a President personally attacking a private citizen, would you consider calling members of the Tea Party "Tea Baggers" a personal attack? We also know that Obama had private citizens monitored. Maybe you disagree, but that type of attack is far more worrisome than a personal attack.

There is a stark difference between what Trump has repeatedly done - attacking private citizens publicly - and the example you provided - a personal letter to an individual. Trump has repeatedly called out individual citizens, judges (for the love of fucking god, Federal Judges - remember the "I'll see you in court!"?), and others. NO other president has ever come even close to this level of horrific behavior.

Here's where I felt we would disagree the most - you sincerely believe that every scandal I have already listed (and there are more I didn't list) is not a scandal. We disagree on what a scandal is, I guess? To me, I've shown you and proven there were scandals. You don't believe they are scandals. Should I re-link articles showing what the scandals were? Would that make a difference? No, it wouldn't I don't think, because we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes a scandal. To me, whether or not someone is charged doesn't mean there was no scandal. Especially given the fact that the departments that are in charge of prosecution are appointed by the executive branch.

I didn't say they were scandals, I said that some of those you listed were either not "scandals" (the racial contrast issue for example) or events that didn't meet the level of "scandal". I'm willing to agree that "meeting the level" is a very slipperly slope - but your list was very light on actual scandals and heavy on political issues. I'd be happy to read about more if you have them.

In one of the examples I linked, I've shown that the mainstream media would blame Trump if the government had shut down over the wall. I guess you wouldn't have blamed it on Trump if the government had shut down over funding for the wall? The mainstream media seems to believe a President can cause a government shutdown, so I guess you disagree with that?

Trump said he would shut down the government if they didn't pay for his way. He SAID that. Exactly. Attributing Trump to his statements is merely reporting the news - certainly not any bias.

I'd argue that a President can easily be blamed for Government shutdowns, especially when it's their policies or unwillingness to budge causes a shutdown. I personally have no problem with a government shut down, just so you know. I don't even view it as a bad thing. My simple point is, a President greatly influences a government shutdown because they are there to persuade congress to pass legislation that aligns with their goals. If that requires a shutdown, then so be it.

Government shut downs are all Congress - the President can influence, and refuse to sign a bill, but it's mostly Congress disagreeing with itself and not being able to find compromise. Something that is just getting worse.

Obama's non-negotiation stances were certainly reflected by the democrats in congress. Knowing their President was behind them, they successfully placed all the blame of the 2013 shutdown on the Republicans. To say President Obama in no way influenced how his party acted by publicly laying blame for a potential shut-down and eventual shut-down on the Republicans would be incorrect. In my mind, of course a President influences that, as they should. What they shouldn't do is falsely lay all the blame on the opposing party.

Mitch McConnell said more than once that his top priority was to disagree and oppose anything Obama was for. How you can say that the 2013 shutdown was anything but the GOP's fault is baffling.

As for race relations, President Obama failed to denounce the Black Lives Matter movement when it turned to violence. He failed to act in Baltimore and made inflammatory comments about race during his time as President. Even if you agree with him about what he said, he was an outspoken voice on race, and his inaction to move on race-rioting or support police with anything other than words is a big way in which he contributed to race relations going down the tube. Those numbers didn't decline on their own, and Obama's actions as President don't point to him being a beacon of unity.

Obama chiming in on his opinion of race relations is not the same as laying the entire issue at his feet.

There's a running list of lies being told by the media since President Trump took the oath of office. I can't list them all, but feel free to comb through the list here.

Interesting - but irrelevant. Getting something wrong isn't the same as fake news or a personal vendetta to attack Trump. Journalists fuck up, and they always have, but people are using normal behavior as reasoning for claiming a false bias against Trump. Did the msm not ever get an Obama story wrong?

I'd say the most dishonest claim being made against Trump (and his team) is that he worked with Russians to get elected. There's been literally zero evidence of that claim, yet it's been talked about for weeks.

And this is where you both lose the argument and show your true bias towards Trump. Literally ALL current evidence and investigations are showing that Trump and his team were neck deep in Russia and the election collusion. Flynn and his registry as a foreign agent - AND the White House won't release any documents being requested by a GOP committee? You don't find that the least unsettling? And that's just the most start issue.

If your response is going to be "where is the smoking gun?" then we're done. The Nixon investigation took two years, with a committee that was of the opposite party as the President. This will take time. And Trump will be impeached.

The media doesn't just report on what happens with Trump, the focus on it almost to the exclusion of all other coverage. I get why they do it, but the fact that 89% of coverage up to this point has been negative is a good indicator that it's pretty one sided. You may feel he merits that 89% of negative coverage. I personally don't, especially if the media was less biased than it currently is.

Did it ever occur to you that the coverage has been 89% negative because that's the amount of negative activity Trump has performed? That Trump actually earned the 89% negativity because he is literally the worst President in our history? Petulant, mentally unbalanced, insecure, refuses to learn new things (his own words). How much worse can it get (I'm almost afraid to ask).

I appreciate your kind and thoughtful responses, as well. Thanks for that. Refreshing to not get into some flame war on the internet.

You've my respect!

Same here - we can disagree and still remain civil.

[Deleted]

President: Not even once
Saynotodrugs

In 8 years people age... 8 years! More news at 11.

[GennGreymane]

In 8 years people age... 8 years! More news at 11.

Say no to sexy interns