America - The Official Thread

[TenEightyOne]

Here we go... Legally I do...Again, legally I do.*

Legally you're protected from doing so - there is no legal onus on you to report any of those things. Can you show a law that says you must?

Interestingly... there are certain people who, if they knew your underage kids smoked weed, would be legally obliged to report it. You're not one of them.

 

[DDastardly00]

Every Democrat state rep and senator from all 8 of the legalized recreational Marijuana states should be writing 1-term President trump Thank You cards today. If Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration decide to pursue this agenda then let's call this what it is, A Gift to the Democratic party in a pretty little box, wrapped in a nice Bow; because come 2018, the Republicans are going to get their butts handed to them in the midterms. They will lose the Senate, and possibly the house too, then 1-term President Trump can have fun trying to get anything done his last two years in office.


I suppose Trump could be just saber-rattling in order to get the Blue states in line on his immigration/deportation policy,but somehow I think he's honestly stupid enough to go through with it. So have fun fighting lawsuits from multiple sates, he will probably win in the short term (States rights will be defeated as previous case law leans heavily in favor of the Feds), but long term this will cost him a 2nd term and the Republican's hold on the Senate. This is so deliciously stupid, I have to grab some popcorn and watch

 

[DK]

What would you expect from Sessions, he was deemed too racist to be a federal judge even in the 1980s.

Speaking of the law, Priebus tried to twist the FBI's arm into getting their higher-ups to publicly slam media reports that they were investigating Trump's possible Russian ties. As a result, a certain someone threw a tanTrump.

 

[mister dog]

If you got an hour to spare, take the effort to listen to this 'funny orange man'. At least you'll be able to form your own opinion on what he is aiming for, instead of taking biased snippets for granted from the MSM:

 

[dylansan]

We might not be getting many snippets from the MSM anymore. Several news organizations were blocked from a White House press briefing today.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/cnn-blocked-white-house-gaggle/

 

[mister dog]

We might not be getting many snippets from the MSM anymore. Several news organizations were blocked from a White House press briefing today.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/cnn-blocked-white-house-gaggle/

Yes, what an outrage. How dare he not invite them to the party after they have been bashing him 24/7
Unprecedented even!:

• December 2012: Several journalists reported that MSNBC hosts were meeting privately with President Obama to discuss the impending “fiscal cliff” fight.
• May 2013: NPR’s Ari Shapiro reported that President Obama was meeting privately with “lefty columnists,” but hastened to add that there was “nothing nefarious” about it.
• November 2013: President Obama met again with liberal journalists, as Obamacare struggled with the failure of healthcare.gov and other problems.
• March 2015: Politico’s media reporter, Hadas Gold, reported that “a group of journalists and columnists,” all on the left, met privately with President Obama, but the White House refused to say “who else was at the meeting or what was discussed.”

 

[Northstar]

There's only so much room, that means some news outlets won't get in. Now if the outlets blocked from this one are routinely blocked in the future I could see getting mad about it.

 

[mister dog]

There's only so much room, that means some news outlets won't get in. Now if the outlets blocked from this one are routinely blocked in the future I could see getting mad about it.

Prepare for 'Trump cracks down on media' headlines tomorrow. They will make it look like he's going Erdogan.

 

[dylansan]

There's only so much room.

Really? The White House suddenly can't make room for the media?

Defend this however you want but that's ridiculous.

 

[Joey D]

So apparently Trump wants to increase our nuclear arsenal:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-exclusive-idUSKBN1622IF

All I can think of is this:

According to this graph, we have nearly 7,000 warheads, do we really need more than that?

(source)

 

[mister dog]

Really? The White House suddenly can't make room for the media?

Defend this however you want but that's ridiculous.

Did you read my post? When Obama did the same nobody said a word.

 

[Northstar]

Really? The White House suddenly can't make room for the media?

Defend this however you want but that's ridiculous.

The White House has a finite amount of space, so no they suddenly can't make room for every media outlet that's interested.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

At least you'll be able to form your own opinion on what he is aiming for, instead of taking biased snippets for granted from the MSM

Wow, I never thought of doing that before!

How dare he not invite them to the party after they have been bashing him 24/7

I know it's sarcasm but this does sound awfully like saying the White House is justified in excluding elements of the press if they don't like how they're covering Trump............

 

[DK]

We might not be getting many snippets from the MSM anymore. Several news organizations were blocked from a White House press briefing today.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/cnn-blocked-white-house-gaggle/

Poor President Snowflake needs a safe space from the possibility of being asked about the murder of Srinivas Kuchibhotla.

BTW, I wonder now that he's pushing for a ban on the use of anonymous sources in the media, he'll apologise for this crap?

 

[mister dog]

I know it's sarcasm but this does sound awfully like saying the White House is justified in excluding elements of the press if they don't like how they're covering Trump............

You think that would be the same motive for Obama excluding conservative outlets on his private press gatherings?

 

[McLaren]

I know it's sarcasm but this does sound awfully like saying the White House is justified in excluding elements of the press if they don't like how they're covering Trump............

You think Obama was inviting any journalists to off-record meetings that critiqued him constantly? As Mister dog's link from Politico points out, the man liked to meet with people he liked to read.

 

[DDastardly00]

What would you expect from Sessions, he was deemed too racist to be a federal judge even in the 1980s.

Speaking of the law, Priebus tried to twist the FBI's arm into getting their higher-ups to publicly slam media reports that they were investigating Trump's possible Russian ties. As a result, a certain someone threw a tanTrump.

No doubt that Sessions was Trump's 2nd worst cabinet pick (Flynn was the worst).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Did you read my post? When Obama did the same nobody said a word.

Yes.

If nobody said a word then how come you had any sources? Riddle me that!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You think Obama was inviting any journalists to off-record meetings that critiqued him constantly?

I don't recall Obama describing the media as the enemy of the people or characterising stories about him doing a poor job as fake news. There's a distinct difference between Obama and Trump when it comes to the media - Trump is unwilling to tolerate any kind of criticism.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Every Democrat state rep and senator from all 8 of the legalized recreational Marijuana states should be writing 1-term President trump Thank You cards today. If Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration decide to pursue this agenda then let's call this what it is, A Gift to the Democratic party in a pretty little box, wrapped in a nice Bow; because come 2018, the Republicans are going to get their butts handed to them in the midterms. They will lose the Senate, and possibly the house too, then 1-term President Trump can have fun trying to get anything done his last two years in office.

I wrote this ten days after the Trump victory:

ME
I can see a scenario where the feds end the ban on marijuana all together.
Conservatives hate lawlessness. And conservatives believe strongly in state's rights.

I can't see how they will be able to overlook all of the states that break the law. But what are they going to do? Not much, I think.

I think the cat is out of the bag on this issue.

I don't think the conservatives will be able to live with a growing number of scofflaw states. Something will have to give.

The law is the law, and Republicans like to follow the law.


Here is what Jeff Sessions said about the matter during his confirmation hearings.

“It’s not so much the attorney general’s job to decide what laws to enforce. We should do our jobs and enforce laws effectively as we’re able,” Sessions said during his hearing. “The U.S. Congress made the possession of marijuana in every state — and the distribution — an illegal act. If that’s something that’s not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule.” source

 

[Northstar]

Yes.

If nobody said a word then how come you had any sources? Riddle me that!

It was certainly never blown up like it has with Trump. Hell, they had an aneurysm when he went out to dinner without them!

I don't recall Obama describing the media as the enemy of the people or characterising stories about him doing a poor job as fake news. There's a distinct difference between Obama and Trump when it comes to the media - Trump is unwilling to tolerate any kind of criticism.

Obama is great with words which I think helped him play the media game. Trump on the other hand is terrible with them and that combined with his lack of tact really aren't good material for someone who has to deal with the press on a constant basis.

This is one area that he really should have selected someone to help him with press relations as than he could have at least had a fighting chance when it comes to public opinion. He of course didn't do that and instead blew what chance he might have had in about 15 minutes.

 

[mister dog]

Yes.

If nobody said a word then how come you had any sources? Riddle me that!

Those words were written

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump on the other hand is terrible with them and that combined with his lack of tact really aren't good material for someone who has to deal with the press on a constant basis.

I don't think it's a lack of tact that's the problem (though that's certainly an issue) - it's Trump's one-man war on the media. It looks like he's trying to stifle any dissent.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Obama

Obama

I have no idea what Obama has to do with my post, considering I didn't mention the man, but to be generous I'll happily condemn the idea of him currying favour with elements of the press, and as a bonus I'll throw in a dislike of this just in case anyone else was going to make a "but but but Clinton!!!!!!" post.

Anyway, @mister dog I was asking (indirectly I admit) whether you were saying that a justifiable reason for the White House excluding elements of the press, is "they don't like what they're saying about Trump". Is it?

 

[McLaren]

I don't recall

Of course you don't. Your blinders have been on from the beginning.

Obama didn't like the way the media treated the election; "Hillary was treated unfairly".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-the-2016-campaign/?utm_term=.a7013d929208

I couldn't be prouder of Secretary Clinton, her outstanding service, and she's worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people, and I don't think she was treated fairly during the election. I think the coverage of her and the issues was troubling.

From the coverage of the Affordable Care Act to the 2012 campaign and into his second term, Obama has viewed the media as overly simplistic, horse-race focused and, often, just plain wrong.

 

[Dotini]

I don't think it's a lack of tact that's the problem (though that's certainly an issue) - it's Trump's one-man war on the media. It looks like he's trying to stifle any dissent.

Trump is a churl and a vulgarian, i.e., tactless and a bad prospect for a would-be politician. Even so, many voters thought he would be preferable to the neoliberal HRC. I'm on record worrying about him actually arresting some reporters. So yes, a big test of the 1st Amendment coming up.

 

[CodeRedR51]

 

[mister dog]

Anyway, @mister dog I was asking (indirectly I admit) whether you were saying that a justifiable reason for the White House excluding elements of the press, is "they don't like what they're saying about Trump". Is it?

Well you have to look it objectively. No matter what your political strain is you'd want to surround yourself with elements of the press that are favorable to your public image. It has been this way for many presidents beforehand and in the case of Trump who is constantly demonized by the MSM, it is even more understandable.

Human nature no?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Of course you don't. Your blinders have been on from the beginning.

There's a difference. Obama offered up an opinion and left it at that. Trump has accused the media of unfairly waging a campaign against him - which, to be fair, is an opinion - but is now granting and restricting media access. Or do you think that Trump is entirely justified in trying to control the media?

 

[mister dog]

Trump has accused the media of unfairly waging a campaign against him

Remember the golden shower story? Even the whole 'Russians did it' narrative has never been proven.