We gotta talk about Biden's press conference today

[Twilight Hue]

I think if you had listened to the questions asked, you would not think they were scripted. They were tough, personal questions for him to answer, and there weren't nearly enough about US foreign policy, which he answers easily.

Sure sure. I've come to learn over the years that tough scripted questions can also have tough scripted answers where you just recite out of memory or look at that old teleprompter in front of you and just parrot off everything like the so called 'press interviews' are being passed off as being these days.

I don't see anybody necessarily sweating too hard at the questions thrown in front and consequently putting their finger underneath their collar while gulping in her throats In answering said 'questions'.

They might as well just hand over the pre-selected 'tough' questions, along with the pre-selected 'tough' answers , and just call it a day.

I guess The Show Must Go On however.

 

[Laniakea]

That's standard stuff. The journos in the room at a Presidential press conference are pre-screened and selected.

It may be standard now, but it didn't have to be until Obama got into office. Trump was able to function without that requirement, and then it came back with Biden. Before Obama, reporters got a chance to be called on randomly.

 

[Laniakea]

Different freedoms effect different folks. Whereas an owner of a papermill may not be free to pollute the Androscoggin river due to the Clean Water Act, this increases my freedom to fish and hike along that river.

I am far more concerned about the freedoms of my LGBTQ+ friends and family and the reproductive freedoms of female-bodied folks., as well as general voting rights and things like the ability to protest or even view pornography. I also put environmental protections as vitally important, since freedom requires good health and strong natural resources to enjoy it.

All those things will pale in comparison to National Security. Once that's eroded enough, those things that concern you will be history.

 

[Left Coast]

It may be standard now, but it didn't have to be until Obama got into office. Trump was able to function without that requirement, and then it came back with Biden. Before Obama, reporters got a chance to be called on randomly.

This took me two seconds to Google.

A Trump News Conference Filters Out the Tough Questions (Published 2017)

Plenty of reporters had questions about the embattled national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, but President Trump did not call on them.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Laniakea]

Barring/banning reporters by pre selection is arguably unconstitutional.

And the more it happens, the more exposes the fact that the media is controlled. The media sources that want presidential access have to kiss the rear of the administration in power if they want access.
So much for the Press being the watchdog of the government.

 

[Laniakea]

I think if you had listened to the questions asked, you would not think they were scripted. They were tough, personal questions for him to answer, and there weren't nearly enough about US foreign policy, which he answers easily.

He didn't even have the answer to what the Ukrainian president's name was, even though the guy was standing right next to him.
Also thought Trump is his VP.

 

[Laniakea]

Can you cite anything in the Constitution to support your assertion? Biden's list contained reporters who had asked him tough questions in the past, and every single one on the list asked him to defend his candidacy in light of his disastrous debate performance.

He has very recent history of making sure to be asked the questions of his choosing. Even when it's a radio show run by blacks, he still felt he needed to know exactly what he was going to be asked: The Biden campaign drafted questions for the president's interviews on a pair of Black radio shows.

 

[Copernicus]

Actually this same argument on the constitutionality of limiting reporters has actually been a left-wing concern of which they howled to the Moon about it over and over again.

Yet now they're doing it themselves unconstitutional like the massive hypocrites they really are , and it really wasn't that long ago in terms of past administrations involving a particular president.

I'll be glad to jog your (and others) memory a bit on the matter....

Trump Bar on Reporters Almost Certainly Unconstitutional | American Civil Liberties Union

In response to reports that the White House office of the press secretary, Sean M. Spicer, today barred entry at a press briefing to reporters from The...

www.aclu.org

How easy people forget, but look on the bright side, such as a bright side can be, is that it is a completely bipartisan massive middle finger to the Constitution. So we can all wallow in this big wet puddle of **** together.

The problem with your analogy is that it does not bear the slightest similarity to what happened in Joe Biden's press conference. Not a single news organization was barred from entry--which could be construed as violating press freedom. And no news organization has complained that they were treated unfairly. Perhaps you were outraged at Donald Trump's behavior at that time, but I suspect you were pleased with it and miffed that the ACLU objected to having members of the press corps barred from a presidential briefing. Now you bring it up in an attempt to bash Democrats for following the routine practice of having a list of reporters to call on. The questions were obviously not even scripted. They were not exactly the kind of questions that Joe Biden wanted to be asked. He was peppered with queries about why he wasn't withdrawing from the race.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The problem with your analogy is that it does not bear the slightest similarity to what happened in Joe Biden's press conference. Not a single news organization was barred from entry--which could be construed as violating press freedom. And no news organization has complained that they were treated unfairly. Perhaps you were outraged at Donald Trump's behavior at that time, but I suspect you were pleased with it and miffed that the ACLU objected to having members of the press corps barred from a presidential briefing. Now you bring it up in an attempt to bash Democrats for following the routine practice of having a list of reporters to call on. The questions were obviously not even scripted. They were not exactly the kind of questions that Joe Biden wanted to be asked. He was peppered with queries about why he wasn't withdrawing from the race.

Try identifying the news agencies that each respective press reporter is associated with and you'll find that your assessment isn't as accurate as you might want to think.

Also I'm sure you're pleased to use the the source I used, namely American civil liberties Union, has been conducent with your rebuttal here.

 

[Copernicus]

Try identifying the news agencies that each respective press reporter is associated with and you'll find that your assessment isn't as accurate as you might want to think.

Why don't you do that for us, since you are the one trying to advance your argument? Your use of a false analogy is pretty obvious. Biden did not exclude any reporters from his press conference, and no news organization has complained of unfair or unlawful treatment. That was not the case in the Trump incident that you cited.

Also I'm sure you're pleased to use the the source I used, namely American civil liberties Union, has been conducent with your rebuttal here.

Reread my rebuttal, which is exactly "conducent" with the ACLU taking a stand on the Trump case. He excluded bona fide members of the White House press corps from a press conference. That had never been done before, and has not been done since Trump left office. It was certainly not done for Joe Biden's press conference.

 

[metis]

x.com

x.com

Like the conspiracy theory that Fox faked the video to make Biden look mad, you mean?

Who said that as I've not seen nor heard anything on that order?

 

[Revoltingest]

Biden proposing doing something that looks
actually useful & novel....

MSN

www.msn.com

Excerpted....
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.

 

[Laniakea]

Biden proposing doing something that looks
actually useful & novel....

MSN

www.msn.com

Excerpted....
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.

IOW, he's proposing a change in the rules because he and his fascists in the democrap party aren't getting what they want.

 

[Ebionite]

Who said that as I've not seen nor heard anything on that order?

Nobody said it, it was implied.

 

[Revoltingest]

IOW, he's proposing a change in the rules because he and his fascists in the democrap party aren't getting what they want.

You disapprove of all the changes?