New Press Rules
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18104493/white-house-press-rules-acosta-ban-reporters-follow-up-questions
quote:
Please be advised of the following rules governing future press conferences:
(1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;
(2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;
(3) ?Yielding the floor? includes, when applicable, surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;
(4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist?s hard pass.
Steven Dennis of Bloomberg noted, strict enforcement of them could allow President Trump or press secretary Sarah Sanders to lie with impunity, as reporters who press them about false claims could be construed as asking more than ?a single question? and risk being banned in response.
That possibility could have a chilling effect on journalists who simply want to hold the executive branch accountable.
The above purple is the hit piece closing statement. It is my understanding that the news and media are to report the news. It is up to the people or proper channels to determine and pursue any further actions.
When the "news" decides to be judge, jury, prosecution and executioner they have bypassed the judicial. So my take is that the media wants to overthrow the USA an force "their rules".
quote:
Please be advised of the following rules governing future press conferences:
(1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;
(2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;
(3) ?Yielding the floor? includes, when applicable, surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;
(4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist?s hard pass.
Steven Dennis of Bloomberg noted, strict enforcement of them could allow President Trump or press secretary Sarah Sanders to lie with impunity, as reporters who press them about false claims could be construed as asking more than ?a single question? and risk being banned in response.
That possibility could have a chilling effect on journalists who simply want to hold the executive branch accountable.
The above purple is the hit piece closing statement. It is my understanding that the news and media are to report the news. It is up to the people or proper channels to determine and pursue any further actions.
When the "news" decides to be judge, jury, prosecution and executioner they have bypassed the judicial. So my take is that the media wants to overthrow the USA an force "their rules".
0
-
?....press secretary Sarah Sanders to lie...?
So who?s holds the media accountable for their lies? You watch, some liberal judge will declare these rules unconstitutional.0 -
quote:to lie with impunityWell right now the press has the monopoly on that. I suppose they're afraid of losing that...... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Do you think that POTUS is literally and factually accurate in everything that he or his office says ?
Of coarse not, he is a politician after all.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Do you think that POTUS is literally and factually accurate in everything that he or his office says ?
Of coarse not, he is a politician after all.
Exactly, thing is, it is not up to the "press" to claim what is factual or not. Their job is to let the people know what was said or done, and let US determine how to think about it.0 -
I just had an interesting idea. Suppose DJT came to his next press conference and opened with, "I'll be asking you the questions", then proceed to grill the press.
What questions would you like DJT to ask reporters? Wouldn't that be interesting? Same rules too, One answer, no followup, turn over the mic when asked to.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Do you think that POTUS is literally and factually accurate in everything that he or his office says ?
Of coarse not, he is a politician after all.
Exactly, thing is, it is not up to the "press" to claim what is factual or not. Their job is to let the people know what was said or done, and let US determine how to think about it.
How are you qualified to make that kind of decision as to the purpose of the press ?
It is an absurd proposition, historically as well as rationally.
They can have free press, IN THEIR OFFICES. In his home/office, he can set the rules. I need the press to tell me what is happening, not what they think is happening. Otherwise, I will HIRE somebody else to get my the "news". WE THE PEOPLE, which includes me, SAYS SO.
So please explain why you claim what I say is absurd... and why did you falsely label my statement a "proposition"?
And yes, this is a test to see how well you can communicate...without prejudice. [;)] And yes, I am JUDGING you based on YOUR response. [}:)]0 -
it DOES NOT MATTER what Trump says or does ..it will never sit well with the swamp dwellers...they want to run the show their way..PERIOD ..so next i expect some bone head judge to order Trump to answer each reporters questions so each will be happy with his response....????? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by spasmcreek
it DOES NOT MATTER what Trump says or does ..it will never sit well with the swamp dwellers...they want to run the show their way..PERIOD ..so next i expect some bone head judge to order Trump to answer each reporters questions so each will be happy with his response....?????
Take note: I asked Bars a few questions to clarify his position and look at the response. While he is not obligated to answer me, or even comment in this topic, it shows to the disposition and character of the man.
So while he got "his" narrative in, he discredited himself by being a pompous dummy. He has been judged, by me and others reading.
If this type of conversation is how he gets his "keyboard jollies", more power to him and Happy Thanksgiving to him! And whether or not he even observes Thanksgiving, I said it and ain't taking it back, and he cannot diminish my good will [;)]
Only in America [:D]
Now to open my can of jellied cranberries drool [:p]0 -
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say the press gets to be rude, uncouth and argue with the President and shout out stupid questions? The gist of this is Congress shall make no laws,, anyone see laws being made during press briefings.?
O'Riley talks about Accoster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQHNztGOXGg0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by droptop
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say the press gets to be rude, uncouth and argue with the President and shout out stupid questions? The gist of this is Congress shall make no laws,, anyone see laws being made during press briefings.?
O'Riley talks about Accoster.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQHNztGOXGg
Using your rationale, then POTUS can instruct BATFE to bar the sales and confiscate bump stocks and whatever else they want.
His instructions are not congressional laws...
A president was elected, not a king.
Funny how people always seem to gravitate towards strong men and tyranny.
Congratulations.
The second amendment is a limit upon the entirety of government. The first amendment specifically limits Congress. The ?Right of the People? trumps, well, even Trump.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by droptop
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say the press gets to be rude, uncouth and argue with the President and shout out stupid questions? The gist of this is Congress shall make no laws,, anyone see laws being made during press briefings.?
O'Riley talks about Accoster.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQHNztGOXGg
Using your rationale, then POTUS can instruct BATFE to bar the sales and confiscate bump stocks and whatever else they want.
This thread is about "press rules". The BATF is a federal law enforcement agency and a part of the Department of Justice, subject to extensive rules and regulations. Jim Accoster is a Dickweed and there is NO WHERE a dickweed is codified as a protected part of the press.
His instructions are not congressional laws... You got this right, however I'd noted the same.
A president was elected, not a king. Who said he was a King?
Funny how people always seem to gravitate towards strong men and tyranny. Exactly why Obama in conjunction with a fawning press was such a dangerous president.
Congratulations.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by droptop
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say the press gets to be rude, uncouth and argue with the President and shout out stupid questions? The gist of this is Congress shall make no laws,, anyone see laws being made during press briefings.?
O'Riley talks about Accoster.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQHNztGOXGg
Using your rationale, then POTUS can instruct BATFE to bar the sales and confiscate bump stocks and whatever else they want.
This thread is about "press rules". The BATF is a federal law enforcement agency and a part of the Department of Justice, subject to extensive rules and regulations. Jim Accoster is a Dickweed and there is NO WHERE a dickweed is codified as a protected part of the press.
His instructions are not congressional laws... You got this right, however I'd noted the same.
A president was elected, not a king. Who said he was a King?
Funny how people always seem to gravitate towards strong men and tyranny. Exactly why Obama in conjunction with a fawning press was such a dangerous president.
Congratulations.
The thread is about executive power, and it's outworking..NO IT"S NOT
It is about respect, and you haven't displayed that here.
I hereby dub you Sir Barzcosta. [B)]0 -
Accoster is the face of bias, fake news and abuses his privileges as a White House correspondent. Accoster is an ego driven suckaphant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N0imgPt-iM0 -
Barzillia seems funny you never said a word for 8 years while all the left BS was protecting Obama 0 -
IMHO, they ought to make sure they bathe and dress in full hazmat gear. The so called press corps are some of the most foul examples of humanity on the planet. 0 -
New rules for the spoiled brats to kick and scream about, yet the other media sources are probably jubilant that they may get a chance to speak.
With this hopefully being the first step in holding the media accountable. Wonder if they will air his first press conference with the new rules live.0 -
These new 'rules' won't make it past the first press conference before some judge makes a ruling against them. Then CJ Roberts will chime in with kudos for said judge, and a few tears as well.[:X] 0 -
I thunk this was about a new reloading press....but not. Happy Thanksgiving 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by droptop
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say the press gets to be rude, uncouth and argue with the President and shout out stupid questions? The gist of this is Congress shall make no laws,, anyone see laws being made during press briefings.?
O'Riley talks about Accoster.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQHNztGOXGg
Using your rationale, then POTUS can instruct BATFE to bar the sales and confiscate bump stocks and whatever else they want.
This thread is about "press rules". The BATF is a federal law enforcement agency and a part of the Department of Justice, subject to extensive rules and regulations. Jim Accoster is a Dickweed and there is NO WHERE a dickweed is codified as a protected part of the press.
His instructions are not congressional laws... You got this right, however I'd noted the same.
A president was elected, not a king. Who said he was a King?
Funny how people always seem to gravitate towards strong men and tyranny. Exactly why Obama in conjunction with a fawning press was such a dangerous president.
Congratulations.
The thread is about executive power, and it's outworking..NO IT"S NOT
It is about respect, and you haven't displayed that here.
I hereby dub you Sir Barzcosta. [B)]
Well, since you are the OP, perhaps you had something more superficial in mind.
That would be consistent with your posts since then.
Thanks for the false narrative Barzcosta.0 -
Jim Accosta abused everyone in the room by monopolizing the microphone and interrupting and arguing with the President and Press Secretary. These rules were not previously necessary because the press rarely if every challenged the previous administration on any issue, and are so angry about Trump's election that they could careless about being respectful. I do not see how any Judge can force the WH to do anything in regards to press conferences. If one orders something then simply stop having them. Trump has already demonstrated that he can get his message out to his supporters via alternative methods. Instead of doing press conferences, do one on one interviews with respectful reporters. 0 -
quote:Do you think that POTUS is literally and factually accurate in everything that he or his office says ?
Barz ---- You apparently don't know the difference between a press conference and a trial or inquisition . The point being a press conference is not a trial, and reporters are not granted the position of prosecuting attorneys.
My god you are some piece of work . Did you get dropped on your head when a baby, or did you have to educate yourself into how you think ?
There is my 2 cents worth into this thread - all I have r want to say.
I can only stand to read a post or two whenever you babble on within a thread. Acosta must be a relative.
I would also add into the rules that when you don't have the mike you are obligated by common curtesy to shut the hell up.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Do you think that POTUS is literally and factually accurate in everything that he or his office says ?
Of coarse not, he is a politician after all.
Exactly, thing is, it is not up to the "press" to claim what is factual or not. Their job is to let the people know what was said or done, and let US determine how to think about it.
How are you qualified to make that kind of decision as to the purpose of the press ?
It is an absurd proposition, historically as well as rationally.
Yep, hence the saying "when the legend is bigger than the facts, print the legend"and CNN is great at doing that..
And you wonder why all you read fake news...
It's not the news reporters job to drill anybody, it's their job to report the news. If what somebody tells them is not factual, then they are to find the proof and print it. Not be a prosecuting attorney drilling a witness....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by droptop
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say the press gets to be rude, uncouth and argue with the President and shout out stupid questions? The gist of this is Congress shall make no laws,, anyone see laws being made during press briefings.?
O'Riley talks about Accoster.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQHNztGOXGg
Using your rationale, then POTUS can instruct BATFE to bar the sales and confiscate bump stocks and whatever else they want.
His instructions are not congressional laws...
A president was elected, not a king.
Funny how people always seem to gravitate towards strong men and tyranny.
Congratulations.
The second amendment is a limit upon the entirety of government. The first amendment specifically limits Congress. The ?Right of the People? trumps, well, even Trump.
Ummmmmm.....so the executive branch of government has the power to limit an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ?
Free speech and press as well ?
Really ?
Yes. That is exactly what I said.
I highlighted those exact words in my post for clarification.0 -
Once upon a time decent folk had respect and did not need to be told how to act in a white house press meet.
Asshats the likes of Jim Accousta and other CNN types need to be told how to act.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by droptop
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say the press gets to be rude, uncouth and argue with the President and shout out stupid questions? The gist of this is Congress shall make no laws,, anyone see laws being made during press briefings.?
O'Riley talks about Accoster.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQHNztGOXGg
Using your rationale, then POTUS can instruct BATFE to bar the sales and confiscate bump stocks and whatever else they want.
His instructions are not congressional laws...
A president was elected, not a king.
Funny how people always seem to gravitate towards strong men and tyranny.
Congratulations.
The second amendment is a limit upon the entirety of government. The first amendment specifically limits Congress. The ?Right of the People? trumps, well, even Trump.
Ummmmmm.....so the executive branch of government has the power to limit an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ?
Free speech and press as well ?
Really ?
Yes. That is exactly what I said.
I highlighted those exact words in my post for clarification.
Other than under martial law or declared national emergencies, then, you believe the executive branch has the power to create laws as POTUS sees fit ?
Is this something you have a reference for, beyond your own opinion ?
Again, please see the highlighted portion of my original post where I cited the virtually unencumbered powers of the President.
Please do not read idiocy into my statements.
That said, there is no requirement that the President or any of his representative answer any question by the press.
To my knowledge, Acosta does not possess real or implied subpoena power. It would have been a better approach, IMO, for Acosta to never be called upon in the future, but the White House Press room is a place where questions can be raised and answered. It is not a place whereby a member of the press is given unlimited time to badger the person at the podium as he or she sees fit.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by droptop
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say the press gets to be rude, uncouth and argue with the President and shout out stupid questions? The gist of this is Congress shall make no laws,, anyone see laws being made during press briefings.?
O'Riley talks about Accoster.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQHNztGOXGg
Using your rationale, then POTUS can instruct BATFE to bar the sales and confiscate bump stocks and whatever else they want.
His instructions are not congressional laws...
A president was elected, not a king.
Funny how people always seem to gravitate towards strong men and tyranny.
Congratulations.
The second amendment is a limit upon the entirety of government. The first amendment specifically limits Congress. The ?Right of the People? trumps, well, even Trump.
Ummmmmm.....so the executive branch of government has the power to limit an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ?
Free speech and press as well ?
Really ?
Yes. That is exactly what I said.
I highlighted those exact words in my post for clarification.
Other than under martial law or declared national emergencies, then, you believe the executive branch has the power to create laws as POTUS sees fit ?
Is this something you have a reference for, beyond your own opinion ?
Again, please see the highlighted portion of my original post where I cited the virtually unencumbered powers of the President.
Please do not read idiocy into my statements.
That said, there is no requirement that the President or any of his representative answer any question by the press.
To my knowledge, Acosta does not possess real or implied subpoena power. It would have been a better approach, IMO, for Acosta to never be called upon in the future, but the White House Press room is a place where questions can be raised and answered. It is not a place whereby a member of the press is given unlimited time to badger the person at the podium as he or she sees fit.
Don, I do not make your comments result in idiocy, your proposition does that all by itself.
I repeatedly asked if your proposition what was what you intended.
Argumentum ad absurdum is a common tool of logic that can be used to demonstrate the weakness of a proposition.
And the argument is not that the president has any obligation to hold press conferences. That is a strawman, as well as gratuitous comments about subpoena power.
If you are going to claim that the executive branch of government has significant legislative powers, including abrogation of any part of the BOR, you have still not provided a reference or a logical presentation for that proposition.
We have a president in this country, not a king.
Even the president is subject to the laws.
Of course. I have repeated pointed out that there is no reference in my post that remotely suggests what you propose.
I point out that the 1st Amendment specifically limits Congress and that the Second Amendment codifies a right of the people. These are simple facts found by reading the amendments in question.
There is no suggesting that the President has any legislative powers.
It is a creation of your imagination; your straw-man, not mine.0 -
Just what would this thread be like if Hillary was in his seat[}:)]. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Don, to suggest that one amendment limits congress as if no other amendments do so, is problematic.
So, as a corollary, would be a suggestion that only congress would be limited as in the case of the first amendment. You identify the right of the people, but seem to wish to identify only that one right as rightfully peculiar in this quality.
"The second amendment is a limit upon the entirety of government. The first amendment specifically limits Congress. The ?Right of the People? trumps, well, even Trump."
If you believe that such approaches are the case when considering the executive branch, or even congressional limitations to rights as enumerated is what I am pointing out is an unusual approach.
Distinctions lacking differences, as they say.
Which is why I have asked several times for a reference that supports such a view.
You seem to have created my view in your own head, and then ask me to support it?
As it is not my view and was not what was said or suggested, I am at a loss as to how to respond. I would suggest that my statement referencing how the second is a limitation on 'the entirety of government' would include Congress. It also includes POTUS, State, County and Municipal Governments as written, for that matter, though we are all aware of the odd history regarding the incorporation of the Bill of Rights upon state and local governments.
I remain unaware of legitimate legislative powers of POTUS other than signing into law legislation passed by Congress. Our recent Presidents have and continue to push at and exceed the boundaries of executive power, and I am not inclined to search for ways to increase this overreach.0 -
if hilde were elected it would be all sunshine, roses, and lollipops ....for the klintons..as the rest of AMERICA would be furnshing untold millions for their "foundation"...and you all know the klintons can never be hels accountable for ANY wrong doing 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Don, to suggest that one amendment limits congress as if no other amendments do so, is problematic.
So, as a corollary, would be a suggestion that only congress would be limited as in the case of the first amendment. You identify the right of the people, but seem to wish to identify only that one right as rightfully peculiar in this quality.
"The second amendment is a limit upon the entirety of government. The first amendment specifically limits Congress. The ?Right of the People? trumps, well, even Trump."
If you believe that such approaches are the case when considering the executive branch, or even congressional limitations to rights as enumerated is what I am pointing out is an unusual approach.
Distinctions lacking differences, as they say.
Which is why I have asked several times for a reference that supports such a view.
You seem to have created my view in your own head, and then ask me to support it?
As it is not my view and was not what was said or suggested, I am at a loss as to how to respond. I would suggest that my statement referencing how the second is a limitation on 'the entirety of government' would include Congress. It also includes POTUS, State, County and Municipal Governments as written, for that matter, though we are all aware of the odd history regarding the incorporation of the Bill of Rights upon state and local governments.
I remain unaware of legitimate legislative powers of POTUS other than signing into law legislation passed by Congress. Our recent Presidents have and continue to push at and exceed the boundaries of executive power, and I am not inclined to search for ways to increase this overreach.
Well, Don, that is why I was asking.
It wasn't making much sense and I really couldn't believe that you were meaning what I thought I was reading.
Thanks for the clarification.
Have a good Sunday !
You as well, Barzillia.
Couple of inches of snow on the ground. First Sunday since march I won't be golfing.
Tis the season, I guess.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
30 comments