2017 White House Correspondents' Dinner

[Deleted]

What did you think of it?



I found it pretty funny and accurate, with roasts all over the place.

[Travis B]

The comedian was pretty funny overall. Some of the jokes fell flat, but that's to be expected in a 25-minute routine. My favorite part was the bit about how CNN declares everything "Breaking News!", because it's so true.

The dinner itself in general is just one enormous circle jerk of so-called journalists talking about how they have the most important profession and the world would cease to exist without them. It rivals the Oscars as far as self-righteousness and smugness goes. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I don't blame him one bit for skipping it.

[PersephoneDankles]

It was a shame that President Trump wasn't in attendance.

You'd want someone with a little humility in a job that important, but we all know that's not his strong suit.

[Cybran]

I have yet to see a funny Indian comedian.

[bladeXcrasher]

It's lost it's traditional intent and is pretty useless now.

[AlphaOut]

I don't blame Trump for not going.

[Woadnson]

I have yet to see a funny Indian comedian.

Hasan Minhaj doesn't do cricket jokes, so he's not really an Indian comedian.

[Tijuana]

What did you think of it?



I found it pretty funny and accurate, with roasts all over the place.

I thought his act was pretty solid.

I was absolutely amazed at how thin skinned the crowd was. Don't they usually laugh when they get roasted a bit at these? It was all stone faces on the people in the crowd that the comedian made fun of.

Also, calling Trump's use of his own free speech to be critical of the press, a "threat to free speech" is so stupid it makes my brain hurt.

I think the comedian was the biggest celebrity there, from what little I watched. SAD!

[Orbitus]

I have yet to see a funny Indian comedian.

And yet, they are still funnier than any conservative comedian, if you can find one.

- - - Updated - - -

He is a giant child. I really think he might have cried.

Might have needed a nap and a diaper change during the bit from crying too much.

[Berengil]

Why would he go? I read somewhere recently that more than 90% of DC journalists vote Democratic. I voted for Sanders in the primaries, and Clinton (with reluctance) in the general election, and I think it's ridiculous to expect someone to sit there and be a punching bag for a room full of partisan hacks.

It would be like expecting Obama to address an NRA convention.

[Edge-]

Also, calling Trump's use of his own free speech to be critical of the press, a "threat to free speech" is so stupid it makes my brain hurt.

How so? He's made it very clear that he takes a hardline against anyone that criticizes him and that he'd like to see libel laws opened up so that he can more easily sue any news organization that doesn't give him favorable coverage.

Why would he go? I read somewhere recently that more than 90% of DC journalists vote Democratic. I voted for Sanders in the primaries, and Clinton (with reluctance) in the general election, and I think it's ridiculous to expect someone to sit there and be a punching bag for a room full of partisan hacks.

It would be like expecting Obama to address an NRA convention.

The president always gets ribbed at the Correspondents Dinner.

And Bush showed up to his every year (if memory serves), are we now admitting that goofy Bush Jr. has a bigger backbone than tiny hands Trump? It's part of the point of the dinner, the president gets a bit of a roast along with the media in attendance. And then the president gets to roast the media themselves, because everyone gets roasted that night.

[Tijuana]

How so? He's made it very clear that he takes a hardline against anyone that criticizes him and that he'd like to see libel laws opened up so that he can more easily sue any news organization that doesn't give him favorable coverage.



The president always gets ribbed at the Correspondents Dinner.

And Bush showed up to his every year (if memory serves), are we now admitting that goofy Bush Jr. has a bigger backbone than tiny hands Trump? It's part of the point of the dinner, the president gets a bit of a roast along with the media in attendance. And then the president gets to roast the media themselves, because everyone gets roasted that night.

I don't know, maybe because HE HAS FREE SPEECH ALSO? Are you serious? ROFL

You legit do not see the humor in the press calling the use of free speech, a threat to free speech? Can it get any more Animal Farm than that?

[Berengil]

The president always gets ribbed at the Correspondents Dinner.

And Bush showed up to his every year (if memory serves), are we now admitting that goofy Bush Jr. has a bigger backbone than tiny hands Trump? It's part of the point of the dinner, the president gets a bit of a roast along with the media in attendance. And then the president gets to roast the media themselves, because everyone gets roasted that night.

I'm saying nothing of the kind. I think the difference is that Dubya has a sort of "aw shucks" sense of humor, while Trump takes everything said about him 100% seriously. He's a classic Type A: easily angered, lack of patience, etc etc.

[Shadowmelded]

Tough crowd, he did well to just keep going with his routine though. Maybe lingered a bit too much on some impressions but with a crowd like that, can't blame him for stalling.

[Kaleredar]

And yet, they are still funnier than any conservative comedian, if you can find one.

- - - Updated - - -



Might have needed a nap and a diaper change during the bit from crying too much.

There are plenty of conservative comedians. THEY just don't know they're comedians.

[Edge-]

I don't know, maybe because HE HAS FREE SPEECH ALSO? Are you serious? ROFL

Yes...and? Nobody is saying he can't say those things or stopping him from saying it. You're aware that one can both exercise their right to free speech while also advocating for restricting said free speech...right?

You legit do not see the humor in the press calling the use of free speech, a threat to free speech? Can it get any more Animal Farm than that?

No, I don't. The press aren't threatening to limit speech, Trump is. Again, complex and nuanced opinions exist, and aren't inherently contradictory.

[Tijuana]

Yes...and? Nobody is saying he can't say those things or stopping him from saying it. You're aware that one can both exercise their right to free speech while also advocating for restricting said free speech...right?



No, I don't. The press aren't threatening to limit speech, Trump is. Again, complex and nuanced opinions exist, and aren't inherently contradictory.

They are literally saying that him being critical of them, violates their free speech. That is as backwards as you can possibly get.

[Edge-]

They are literally saying that him being critical of them, violates their free speech. That is as backwards as you can possibly get.

...no they're not. Please show me where they're saying that Trump is "violating" (which is very different from threatening) their freedom of speech. They're saying, and rightfully so, that Trump's rhetoric is dangerous to free speech and the First Amendment, something that's absolutely reasonable if you bother to read Trumps comments as of late (attacking the Constitution, the separation of powers etc.)

Your arguments are getting less and less coherent and less and less grounded in reality, lately.

[Tijuana]

...no they're not. Please show me where they're saying that Trump is "violating" (which is very different from threatening) their freedom of speech. They're saying, and rightfully so, that Trump's rhetoric is dangerous to free speech and the First Amendment, something that's absolutely reasonable if you bother to read Trumps comments as of late (attacking the Constitution, the separation of powers etc.)

Your arguments are getting less and less coherent and less and less grounded in reality, lately.

They are literally and plainly taking offense to him attacking them, and calling it a threat to free speech. They are saying that, because he attacks them, it harms their credibility, and therefore that is a threat to free speech. That is hilariously misguided.

Now, if you want to take on the tertiary topic of Trump discussing expanding the libel laws, then that is a debatable free speech infringement. I don't agree with it, but at least that is a logical and debatable position to take.

The notion that their complaints about Trump attacking them, are all related to the tertiary topic of libel laws, is a bit disingenuous, imo. They have clearly and repeatedly taken issue with the fact that Trump calls them fake news, and they say this harms free speech. That is greatly amusing to me, since he obviously has free speech as much as they do.

[Edge-]

They are literally and plainly taking offense to him attacking them, and calling it a threat to free speech.

They're taking offense to his comments about opening up libel laws, yes. Because that is a threat to free speech.

Glad you've walked back from "violating" to "threatening", which is what's actually happening.

Media are in a rough spot financially, but you're projecting Trump's insecurities onto them. Only Trump is the one that gets insecure that easily.

They are saying that, because he attacks them, it harms their credibility, and therefore that is a threat to free speech. That is hilariously misguided.

Nope, see above.

Now, if you want to take on the tertiary topic of Trump discussing expanding the libel laws, then that is a debatable free speech infringement. I don't agree with it, but at least that is a logical and debatable position to take.

Stuff like opening up the libel laws is specifically what media are talking about. Between that and Trump's critical comments on the separation of powers, our judicial system, the Constitution, and more, people should be concerned by his rhetoric. If they're not, I'm wondering if they're even paying attention.

The notion that their complaints about Trump attacking them, are all related to the tertiary topic of libel laws, is a bit disingenuous, imo. They have clearly and repeatedly taken issue with the fact that Trump calls them fake news, and they say this harms free speech. That is greatly amusing to me, since he obviously has free speech as much as they do.

Except every single piece I've read on this subject (by members of the press) has been firmly rooted in Trumps threats to open up libel laws, because that's a major threat to news media covering any negative stories, especially about a president.

Do you have any links to media calling Trump's frequent chant of "FAKE NEWS" (which is bloody stupid as hell, and an embarrassment from a head of state) in response to any remotely negative coverage a threat to free speech? I've not seen any, so I'd be very keen to read about it.