Trump kicks out Reporter. Nice! lol

[Beeblebrox237]

That's exactly what the elite, educated press, elected politicians, university academics, and Wall Street bankers think as well. The Big Problem is the citizenry and system of democracy that permits them to vote. Once The People are allowed to participate, just about anything can happen, like the French Revolution! Perhaps a benevolent dictatorship of the educated elite is to be preferred?

Trump may be idiotic, but comparing him winning the election to the French Revolution is rather tasteless and overdramatic in light of how bloody the reign of terror was.

 

[FoRiZon]

Trump may be idiotic, but comparing him winning the election to the French Revolution is rather tasteless and overdramatic in light of how bloody the reign of terror was.

Im surpirsed no one compared Trump to Hitler yet.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Trump let him back in and gave him plenty of time.

 

[TVR27]

Im surpirsed no one compared Trump to Hitler yet.

Maybe Trump should buy a island and become a dictator.

 

[Carbonox]

I'm surprised no one has edited the thread title into a more, uhh, formal form.

 

[polysmut]

I'm surprised no one has edited the thread title into a more, uhh, formal form.

It must be hard to decide whether to merge this with parts of the election thread and/or the America thread. It might depend how the various threads play out.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And yet even the President did the same thing when he was being interrupted.

How was it the same? Obama was being heckled during a speech, that wasn't an open question/answer session. He also politely asked the heckler to stop. When the heckling continued the guy was removed.

Not the same thing at all, you should watch the clip. Plus... Obama was funny with it.

It must be hard to decide whether to merge this with parts of the election thread and/or the America thread. It might depend how the various threads play out.

I think he meant the way the title is written.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Trump is not suitable to be president.

Neither are those that really compete with him...so not sure what the point is, other than to just sound like the many I could walk outside and talk to that will say the same thing because everyone else does. I mean Trump hasn't been a worthy candidate since the first couple times he's been suggested, but doing the old..."he's a joke" or "he's stupid" I could easily say the same thing about Clinton, Bush or any others due to things they've said in recent months, years and so on. Due to policies they've promoted, pushed or events brushed under the rug. So I mean at least if we're going to bash the guy can we do so on a higher intellectual level than the thread title?

The only reason it is working this time is due to the lack of those that can bring in the same notoriety as he can for a party that doesn't even full recognize him

 

[JKgo]

...I don't find Trump idiotic at all. Proof? His bank balance. No idiots I know of are a "self-made billionaire".

I do find him as a sleazeball though. Along with used car salemen, anyone who made it as a real estate man or a Wall Street banker in my book are not really worthy of leading a multi national conglomerate, let alone a dang nation...

I wouldn't put my hopes of a Great American Revival with those type of businessmen.

Only redeeming quality he had was back when he had that "Billionaire's Match" with Vince McMahon. That was fun, though I wouldn't have gone with Lashley... Oops, off topic. Sorry.

 

[Famine]

And yet even the President did the same thing when he was being interrupted.

Shame on Obama for encroaching on that man's First Amendment

Yep.


I found Obama's line interesting at the time too. "You're in my house"... I mean, I don't want to point out the technical inaccuracy here, but it's not his house - even though it is almost a literal ivory tower for the person elected to defend the Constitution supreme leader of the free world.

I'm thinking it's long past time we stop pretending that all branches of the US government (and, let's be fair to the US, it's not alone here by a long, long way) are doing the jobs they're supposed to be doing. They're ruling, not serving and instead of each arm defending the Constitution in case of attack from the other two, they're looking more and more at creative ways of doing what they want and sliding it in past the Constitution. Then they hold stage-managed press conferences at which they only take questions they want to answer from people they want to give answers to and take their heavily armoured cars to lock themselves in grand palaces (our lot do that too) away from the people that they're supposed to be serving...


I disagree with just about everything Bernie Sanders has to say, but let's have a look at how he and his security handles the First Amendment rights of a pair of utter imbeciles (possible language warning, because they're idiots):



Now there's a man who knows that the Constitution is more important than he is.

 

[Dennisch]

They're not even listening. What a bunch of hittable women.

 

[huskeR32]

And yet even the President did the same thing when he was being interrupted.

Shame on Obama for encroaching on that man's First Amendment, & not on that man for being a jackass like Ramos for blurting out.

On the one hand we have an actual reporter speaking out of turn during a designated question/answer session.

On the other hand we have a heckler, without press credentials, interrupting the President while he was in the middle of giving his statement.

If you want to point out that politicians on both sides of the aisle are clowns, I won't argue. But at least find a situation where the comparison can't be shot down by a three-year-old.

Of course, acknowledging the context of situations wouldn't allow you to continue on with the paranoid persecution complex that is so dear to conservatives these days.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

On the one hand we have an actual reporter speaking out of turn during a designated question/answer session.

On the other hand we have a heckler, without press credentials, interrupting the President while he was in the middle of giving his statement.

If you want to point out that politicians on both sides of the aisle are clowns, I won't argue. But at least find a situation where the comparison can't be shot down by a three-year-old.

Of course, acknowledging the context of situations wouldn't allow you to continue on with the paranoid persecution complex that is so dear to conservatives these days.

How so? Both matters fall under the first amendment as highlighted in this thread. Just cause you got a four year that gave you the ability to work for a group that gives you a press badge doesn't mean your first amendment expression becomes bigger than those who don't have said badge.

To me you have to either agree that it's alright in both situations to have people be out of turn and speak out to get answers or you feel they both don't. But it's a bit contrived to split hairs over the matter, either you see it right to speak out and interrupt the person speaking about a matter to hopefully get an answer due to accountability...or you think that such interruptions are not justified.

 

[huskeR32]

To me you have to either agree that it's alright in both situations to have people be out of turn and speak out to get answers or you feel they both don't.

Why must they both be viewed the same?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Why must they both be viewed the same?

From the perspective I already explained the post you quoted. They're both first amendment expressions, where someone is trying to get an answer or information by expressing free speech.

 

[huskeR32]

From the perspective I already explained the post you quoted. They're both first amendment expressions, where someone is trying to get an answer or information by expressing free speech.

I don't see why that means that I can't take into account that in one situation you had an accredited member of the press, and in the other you did not; and in one you had a reporter speaking during a question/answer session, and in the other you had a heckler who didn't even bother listening to what the speaker had to say first.

It's apples to oranges. Despite your insistence that I "have to agree" with both or neither, I'm going to go ahead and consider the different contexts when weighing the merits of McLaren's insinuation that there's some sort of liberal bias going on here.

 

[polysmut]

Until one of them is elected to serve, the context seems more to me like 2 people in a room arguing than something where the first ammendment needs to be considered.

 

[huskeR32]

Until one of them is elected to serve, the context seems more to me like 2 people in a room arguing than something where the first ammendment needs to be considered.

Deciding who to vote for is one of the most critical times to exercise the First. If we can't get real answers from Trump about his views now, then when?

 

[polysmut]

Deciding who to vote for is one of the most critical times to exercise the First. If we can't get real answers from Trump about his views now, then when?

I agree with journalists trying to get answers & I wouldn't be inclined to vote for a candidate who avoids providing them. I just don't see how the constitution forces a candidate to comply.

 

[huskeR32]

I just don't see how the constitution forces a candidate to comply.

In this situation, it never really got to the point where Trump refused to answer. He silenced the question before it could even be asked.

In general, you seem to be suggesting that you think elected officials should be held to a higher standard in these situations than candidates are. Which, on the surface, sounds reasonable.

However, I would argue that The Presidential Public Funding Program, which uses taxpayer dollars to help fund campaigns, provides an ethical obligation for candidates to be every bit as responsive to the press as the President himself is.*

*Which probably brings up the question of when those funds are actually released to the candidates, and I don't know the answer to that.

 

[polysmut]

In this situation, it never really got to the point where Trump refused to answer. He silenced the question before it could even be asked.

In general, you seem to be suggesting that you think elected officials should be held to a higher standard in these situations than candidates are. Which, on the surface, sounds reasonable.

However, I would argue that The Presidential Public Funding Program, which uses taxpayer dollars to help fund campaigns, provides an ethical obligation for candidates to be every bit as responsive to the press as the President himself is.*

*Which probably brings up the question of when those funds are actually released to the candidates, and I don't know the answer to that.

An ethical obligation to do so, maybe. Nothing relating to the first ammendment though?

 

[Famine]

I just don't see how the constitution forces a candidate to comply.

It doesn't.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yep.


I found Obama's line interesting at the time too. "You're in my house"... I mean, I don't want to point out the technical inaccuracy here, but it's not his house - even though it is almost a literal ivory tower for the person elected to defend the Constitution supreme leader of the free world.

I'm thinking it's long past time we stop pretending that all branches of the US government (and, let's be fair to the US, it's not alone here by a long, long way) are doing the jobs they're supposed to be doing. They're ruling, not serving and instead of each arm defending the Constitution in case of attack from the other two, they're looking more and more at creative ways of doing what they want and sliding it in past the Constitution. Then they hold stage-managed press conferences at which they only take questions they want to answer from people they want to give answers to and take their heavily armoured cars to lock themselves in grand palaces (our lot do that too) away from the people that they're supposed to be serving...


I disagree with just about everything Bernie Sanders has to say, but let's have a look at how he and his security handles the First Amendment rights of a pair of utter imbeciles (possible language warning, because they're idiots):



Now there's a man who knows that the Constitution is more important than he is.

If someone came onto my podium and yelled, "if you do not listen to her, your event will be shut down", I'd have them tossed off the stage without batting an eye.

 

[Famine]

If someone came onto my podium and yelled, "if you do not listen to her, your event will be shut down", I'd have them tossed off the stage without batting an eye.

I don't believe that you have tossed your name into the goblet as a candidate for the protector of the Constitution.

Remember, the Constitution is a document that limits the powers of federal government. It doesn't guarantee blanket free speech and free press, it prevents* the federal government from censoring it. Now technically Trump isn't the federal government and I suppose technically he won't be even if he's the Republican Party's nominee (or independent) for the Presidential Election, so technically he's not censoring free press - it just speaks for his attitude towards free press and the First Amendment.

Bernie Sanders is the federal government - he's a State Senator. The no-marks who, apparently unfamiliar with his track record on equal rights running back fifty years, decided to gatecrash his speech - in a public place, rather than "his" podium - may be and indeed quite demonstrably are utter imbeciles, but Sanders let them exercise their right to free speech without censoring them. That speaks for his attitude towards free speech and the First Amendment.


*In that it doesn't. It ought to, but doesn't. See the line about it being past time we stopped pretending the Constitution was being defended.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't see why that means that I can't take into account that in one situation you had an accredited member of the press, and in the other you did not; and in one you had a reporter speaking during a question/answer session, and in the other you had a heckler who didn't even bother listening to what the speaker had to say first.

It's apples to oranges. Despite your insistence that I "have to agree" with both or neither, I'm going to go ahead and consider the different contexts when weighing the merits of McLaren's insinuation that there's some sort of liberal bias going on here.

What differing context, so you're agreeing that due to the fact he's a journalist his right to speak out and interrupt due to the first outweighs those of us who aren't? That's the point at the end of the day that straightforward. The point that had divided this thread is if it should be considered when interrupted or only when asked upon. To be honest I've never considered it the way @Famine puts it, because a press conference is a organized manner of asking questions despite if you think the person being asked will call upon your or not. And in reality in my experience the questions aren't ever fully answered but given a round about way of doing so as Trump later shows when inviting Ramos back and responding. I recall the same thing being done by Romney and Obama alike.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I don't believe that you have tossed your name into the goblet as a candidate for the protector of the Constitution.

Remember, the Constitution is a document that limits the powers of federal government. It doesn't guarantee blanket free speech and free press, it prevents* the federal government from censoring it. Now technically Trump isn't the federal government and I suppose technically he won't be even if he's the Republican Party's nominee (or independent) for the Presidential Election, so technically he's not censoring free press - it just speaks for his attitude towards free press and the First Amendment.

Bernie Sanders is the federal government - he's a State Senator. The no-marks who, apparently unfamiliar with his track record on equal rights running back fifty years, decided to gatecrash his speech - in a public place, rather than "his" podium - may be and indeed quite demonstrably are utter imbeciles, but Sanders let them exercise their right to free speech without censoring them. That speaks for his attitude towards free speech and the First Amendment.


*In that it doesn't. It ought to, but doesn't. See the line about it being past time we stopped pretending the Constitution was being defended.

Since when have we established that it was "Trump's Podium"? Once again you seem to have given, and I'm not just speaking as a republican here, the indication that just because one candidate decides to give a speech in a "public" place that it's okay for any Tom, Dick and Harry to speak out for any given cause. Unlike Bernie Sanders, who was quite honestly was ran off the stage by the Black Lives Matter crowd, Trump didn't allow an activist reporter, calling Mr. Ramos who he actually is now, to run over him on illegal immigration, and that is the bottom line here.

 

[Famine]

Since when have we established that it was "Trump's Podium"?

We haven't.

For a start I never used that phrase anywhere, for a follow-up I'm pointing out very specifically that it's a public place and not "his" podium (you literally underlined it) and for the clincher I was talking about Bernie Sanders. That's why Bernie Sanders' name appears at the start of the paragraph, in the previous sentence and I refer to his track record on equal rights running back fifty years. You underlined all of that...

Once again you seem to have given, and I'm not just speaking as a republican here, the indication that just because one candidate decides to give a speech in a "public" place that it's okay for any Tom, Dick and Harry to speak out for any given cause.

It is. First Amendment.

The great thing about the First Amendment is that it's an embodiment of the phrase about opening one's mouth and removing all doubt. We got to see a pair of ludicrous buttpipes threaten, intimidate and bully some people who they don't know are on their side into having their say, which was itself utterly moronic. Now we all know that Black Lives Matter in Seattle is a howling pack of nobgobblers.

And Bernie got to show that he thinks the First Amendment is more important than he is - a good quality to have for someone going for the job of defending the Constitution. Some say that shows he's weak and will be weak in foreign negotiations, but the First Amendment and indeed the rest of the Constitution applies only to the USA and its citizens. This may be a Democrat that knows his limits and won't, for a rough example, order drone strikes on teenagers from Denver.

Unlike Bernie Sanders, who was quite honestly was ran off the stage by the Black Lives Matter crowd, Trump didn't allow an activist reporter, calling Mr. Ramos who he actually is now, to run over him on illegal immigration, and that is the bottom line here.

Whatever Mr. Ramos is or isn't in addition to being an actual journalist, Trump still had a journalist physically removed from a press conference.

So, to reiterate...

Trump threw a journalist out of a press conference - the concept of the press conference itself being a way to control media (as mentioned in earlier posts) - which should tell you what this prospective defender of the Constitution thinks about what freedom the press should have (though as he isn't the Federal government yet, him doing so isn't contrary to the First Amendment).

Sanders allowed some people who were quite demonstrably utter morons to exercise freedom of speech in a public place. That should tell you what this prospective defender of the Constitution thinks about what freedom of speech there should be.

And to literally reiterate:

I disagree with just about everything Bernie Sanders has to say,

And for reference, I'd be classed as a Libertarian - that's fiscally Conservative and socially Liberal.

 

[Johnnypenso]

We haven't.

For a start I never used that phrase anywhere, for a follow-up I'm pointing out very specifically that it's a public place and not "his" podium (you literally underlined it) and for the clincher I was talking about Bernie Sanders. That's why Bernie Sanders' name appears at the start of the paragraph, in the previous sentence and I refer to his track record on equal rights running back fifty years. You underlined all of that...It is. First Amendment.

The great thing about the First Amendment is that it's an embodiment of the phrase about opening one's mouth and removing all doubt. We got to see a pair of ludicrous buttpipes threaten, intimidate and bully some people who they don't know are on their side into having their say, which was itself utterly moronic. Now we all know that Black Lives Matter in Seattle is a howling pack of nobgobblers.

And Bernie got to show that he thinks the First Amendment is more important than he is - a good quality to have for someone going for the job of defending the Constitution. Some say that shows he's weak and will be weak in foreign negotiations, but the First Amendment and indeed the rest of the Constitution applies only to the USA and its citizens. This may be a Democrat that knows his limits and won't, for a rough example, order drone strikes on teenagers from Denver.Whatever Mr. Ramos is or isn't in addition to being an actual journalist, Trump still had a journalist physically removed from a press conference.

So, to reiterate...

Trump threw a journalist out of a press conference - the concept of the press conference itself being a way to control media (as mentioned in earlier posts) - which should tell you what this prospective defender of the Constitution thinks about what freedom the press should have (though as he isn't the Federal government yet, him doing so isn't contrary to the First Amendment).

Sanders allowed some people who were quite demonstrably utter morons to exercise freedom of speech in a public place. That should tell you what this prospective defender of the Constitution thinks about what freedom of speech there should be.

And to literally reiterate:

And for reference, I'd be classed as a Libertarian - that's fiscally Conservative and socially Liberal.

I don't see what Sanders did as supporting or demonstrating that the First Amendment is more important than he is at all. I thought it just demonstrated weakness and his willingness to sacrifice decorum in the interests of any politically correct, socially sensitive cause. I'll be curious to see if he has the same reaction of some right wing nutjob jumps up on the podium yelling about "them immigrants" and aborted babies.

 

[LeMansAid]

Trump threw a journalist out of a press conference - the concept of the press conference itself being a way to control media (as mentioned in earlier posts) - which should tell you what this prospective defender of the Constitution thinks about what freedom the press should have (though as he isn't the Federal government yet, him doing so isn't contrary to the First Amendment).

Sanders allowed some people who were quite demonstrably utter morons to exercise freedom of speech in a public place. That should tell you what this prospective defender of the Constitution thinks about what freedom of speech there should be.

There's surely a line between honouring freedom of speech, and gifting a soapbox. Possibly a crucial separation in not allowing descension to chaos to be at the fingertips of any and every moron, and that might plague any or every event.

I agree with your ideal, but not with how it should work in practice. I'd wonder if it might be some inextricable commie nature in me....... but penso.....