Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

Your understanding is incorrect (I'd argue deliberately so, given the lengths the media is going to create this false impression). The people added to the gaggle in addition to the pool were selected by the Press Secretary. The press pool was invited to the gaggle. Just like they are for all gaggles. Just like they have always been to all gaggles. There is literally nothing at all unusual about this, except that the media decided out of the blue to pretend that there was.

The only even remotely vague complaint these media outlets could have is that they weren't on the list added in addition to the press pool. But this is normal. When the PS holds a gaggle in his office, he physically can't allow more than maybe 10 or 12 people in there. The full corps is like what 60 members? They can't all fit. They never fit. A large portion of the press corps is always excluded from those gaggles. This is, in fact, exactly why the press pool exists. As long as they were invited there is no problem.

The only difference, as I've mentioned repeatedly, is that those who weren't added to the list decided to demand that they be added, despite most not being added most of the time for these events, and then made a big show of not being allowed into the Press Secretaries office when they decided to show up anyway despite not having been invited, and then wrote stories about how they were excluded and it was so unfair, and whaaa whaaa whaaa....!

Totally made up. And obviously so for anyone who spends any time actually looking at the facts. The media is counting on most people not doing this, and most people just allowing their impressions and understandings from the story to influence them. Which is more or less precisely where the whole "fake news" narrative is coming from. It's this kind of stuff that is infuriating people, and the media just doing yet another blatant example of that behavior is not helping at all.

If you're still in doubt, just read the CNN article I linked earlier. In the midst of the hysteria and quotes of outrage, are parts like this:



Er. Muddled writing, since the last sentence there has nothing to do with the pool (but is making an irrelevant point about how 4 of the 5 major TV outlets were invited, which I suppose is relevant to CNN, but not to the actual content of the paragraph they're writing). The take away is that the pool was invited (and presumably was present barring their own choice not to attend I suppose). There is literally nothing unusual about this at all. But it's being reported as though it is. Which makes on wonder why? Other than than to fabricate a story and outrage, there's nothing. You could literally write this story about excluded media at every single gaggle that has ever been held at any White House event. Ever.

What we should be outraged about is the blatant misrepresentation of the facts by the media in this case. Heck. It's not even subtle. All you had to do was read the CNN story itself and then go research what the press pool is and how it works to see that the very story itself is inherently contradictory. A contradiction that every single journalist claiming outrage has to know is false (it's their profession and they know how the system works). The story literally assumes that the audience doesn't know what they know and they can safely just plain straight up lie to them and get away with it. That's freaking brazen.

This isn't even (or shouldn't be) about what "side" you're on. It should not matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican. A conservative or a liberal. A Trump supporter or Trump hater. You should expect and demand that your media, especially the media members sent by their respective outlets to act as the public's eyes and ears at the White House, should be telling us the truth and not deliberately misleading us. Yet that is exactly what they quite obviously are doing. And I guess they just assume we're all just to dumb to figure it out or something.

I assume most of you aren't dumb, right? So what is it? Partisanship is just so strong that you refuse to acknowledge what just happened? You'll just look the other way because maybe it benefits you, this time? That seems foolish to me.

...just assume we're all just too dumb...

Ah. Another case of the mysterious "you did something back in the past, that I'm not going to specifically or clearly state, but which invalidates what you're saying now" deflection. Got it. Why not just admit that I have a completely valid point in this case and move from there? The fact is that the media's actions in this are completely indefensible. So I guess instead of defending it, or acknowledging it, you're just going to deflect the issue? Not sure what that accomplishes, but congrats, I guess?

I'm reasonably certain that I've provided more than enough evidence and facts and argument in support of the claim I'm making right now, right here, in this thread. Is that not sufficient?

Edited, Feb 28th 2017 5:09pm by gbaji

This just in, Kellyanne put her feet on the couch. More at 11.

I see you're taking your standard approach of feigning ignorance while making random accusations in hopes to distract from your bluff not working. Let's see how well that works out for you this time. You haven't. Proof positive she's not Italian. Number of headaches.

I always assumed they had an army of Oompa-Loompas trailing after everyone constantly cleaning.

The Oompa-Loompa sits at the desk now.

How is that wall coming along, anyway? Last I heard Mexico still hasn't sent us a check, and the “existing funds and resources” that Mexico would totally pay us back for was short something like $21b.

Looks like Sessions is the next on the chopping block, as GOP lawmakers are turning on him for lying about Russia during his confirmation. I guess the whole "draining the swamp" thing was to create a revolving door administration.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2017 12:03pm by lolgaxe

Sessions recuses himself from Russia inquiry



Isn't Trumps "total confidence" the kiss of death?



Edited, Mar 2nd 2017 1:56pm by stupidmonkey

That's...gbaji-level BS right there.

The most sensible explanation I've been given is not that there is so much a control element within the Trump administration from Russia, though still possible, but rather a Trump administration helps Putin domestically by giving him a foreign distraction. A flailing and failing U.S. presidency allows him to say how comparatively well he is doing, and actions like a Muslim country ban show that every democracy has its limits, and so his authoritarian regime seems less restrictive when the U.S. is also curtailing rights and freedom.