Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 407 posts

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#361

Post by mwpmaybe »

SnowFace wrote: post #359
mwpmaybe wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start here: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/stateme... How about: * Lying about his past opposition to the Iraq war * Lying about Russia only hacking the DNC (they hacked the RNC too, or at least tried to, but didn't release anything) * Lying about the size of the crowd at his inauguration * Lying about his "historic" electoral win (it wasn't) * Lying about the election being rigged against him (…

Shame on you. You don't like his politics, fine, but cut the propaganda. > Lying about his past support for the Iraq war Go watch his Howard Stern interview yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OU_Vrb_QXo . Listen at how indecisive he is for that question compared to the rest of the interview. It's wishy washy. It's hesitant. It's not a statement of support to call someone a liar over, unless you have an agenda…

"I was totally against the war in Iraq." — Donald Trump on NBC News in 2016[0]

That's a lie, and one he's repeated often. Wishy-washy, hesitant support for a thing is not the same as being totally against a thing. His assertion that he was in opposition to it from the very beginning is a deliberate, egregious misrepresentation of his past views intended to convey authority on a subject that he simply does not possess.

I'll update the wording of my initial point to be more clear, since you have my original wording quoted here for posterity.

0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/th...

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#362

Post by smsm42 »

redial wrote: post #337
smsm42 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean softballs like: - Golf, what does it do for you? - How does your golf game hold up next to Tiger’s? - What has enchanted you the most from serving in this office? - In this fatherless world, where did you learn to love? - Are you ready to call yourself the ‘comeback kid’? - You definitely have some impressive accomplishments….And more than a lot of presidents who manage to get reelected. My question is, is i…

Reporters can ask whatever they want, including stupid/uninteresting questions, that's the point. But limiting who can attend is only a move to signal they don't want hard questions and if you ask them you get banned.

Nobody wants hard questions, as such, but I agree it would be good for the President to allow diversity of viewpoints be represented in the press pool. I'm just saying journalists being soft and submissive towards the government with which they are politically aligned is not exactly the new thing that Trump threatens to unleash on us - it has happened many times before.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#364

Post by SnowFace »

mwpmaybe wrote: post #361
SnowFace wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame on you. You don't like his politics, fine, but cut the propaganda. > Lying about his past support for the Iraq war Go watch his Howard Stern interview yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OU_Vrb_QXo . Listen at how indecisive he is for that question compared to the rest of the interview. It's wishy washy. It's hesitant. It's not a statement of support to call someone a liar over, unless you have an agenda…

"I was totally against the war in Iraq." — Donald Trump on NBC News in 2016[0] That's a lie, and one he's repeated often. Wishy-washy, hesitant support for a thing is not the same as being totally against a thing. His assertion that he was in opposition to it from the very beginning is a deliberate, egregious misrepresentation of his past views intended to convey authority on a subject that he simply does not possess…

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have. - Trump in Esquire 2004

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#365

Post by mwpmaybe »

SnowFace wrote: post #364
mwpmaybe wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I was totally against the war in Iraq." — Donald Trump on NBC News in 2016[0] That's a lie, and one he's repeated often. Wishy-washy, hesitant support for a thing is not the same as being totally against a thing. His assertion that he was in opposition to it from the very beginning is a deliberate, egregious misrepresentation of his past views intended to convey authority on a subject that he simply does not possess…

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest,…

Sure. A lot of people were against it after it started, especially when it began to go south. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about statements like this:

"[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on 8-Sep-2016[0]

Considering that the vote was on 11-Oct-2002, and we have audio of Trump expressing hesitant, wishy-washy support for the war on 11-Sep-2002, that is almost certainly not true.

0. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-10/ap-...

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#366

Post by ChicagoDave »

thehardsphere wrote: post #194
ChicagoDave wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's factually incorrect. Democratic turn out was down in 2016.

That doesn't mean liberals don't vote. It may mean other things: 1. Obama voters flipped for Trump (this actually happened in PA) 2. Moderate voters may have stayed home or flipped. 3. Some races were not terribly competitive, so people stayed home even though it would not have mattered for them to vote (e.g. the CA Senate race between two Democrats) I mean, if you're really a liberal, would you have not voted? Excep…

Oh there's no doubt people stayed home because of both candidates, but it's my theory many democrats stayed home because of Hillary.

Agreed. Democrats need to choose young, dashing, charismatic, unimpeachable candidates at every level. This is how dems get excited and actually vote.

Conservatives vote based on policy. Liberals vote based on the person. This is their (our) failure.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#367

Post by ChicagoDave »

gdulli wrote: post #225
ChicagoDave wrote: post #40

Well proof will come out in the mid-terms. Do most voters want this kind of leadership or not? Of course the GOP is going to contract voting rights as much as possible in the interim, so it's going to be a battle. Liberals don't vote. Will that change?

> Liberals don't vote The Democrats won the popular vote by 3 million votes, so this doesn't seem right. But for some surgical gerrymandering we might not be having a conversation about President Trump at all.

Most of the extra votes are in one state, California. This is not a reasonable argument.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#368

Post by SnowFace »

mwpmaybe wrote: post #365
SnowFace wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest,…

Sure. A lot of people were against it after it started, especially when it began to go south. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about statements like this: "[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on 8-Sep-2016[0] Considering that the vote was on 11-Oct-2002, and we have audio of Trump expressing hesitant, wis…

You're trying to put his statement into a different context now. I thought we were talking about him saying that he was totally against the war in Iraq, which he was. So we agree that wasn't a lie.

> "[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on September 8th, 2016[0]

You can't disprove a hypothetical situation that never happened to call him a liar. Who knows what he would have done if he had been in congress instead of a businessman. It's clear though he was questioning it publicly as early as 2003 in the Cavuto interview, which was before the war started, and came out totally against it publicly in 2004 less than a year after it started. Who knows what he was saying privately before that. You don't know. This isn't grounds to call him a liar.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#369

Post by EduardoBautista »

praneshp wrote: post #170

I was going to do a Ask HN, but will jump on this thread. What's the better subscription to get, NYTimes or WSJ?

I have a subscription to the WSJ. I also subscribe to The Economist. You can read the NYT for free easily, although if I were willing to spend more money I would gladly support their work, but I already spent over $300 in annual subscriptions.

I also like how the economist and the WSJ apps have weekly and daily editions respectively. The NYT app is one continuously updating feed.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#370

Post by redial »

smsm42 wrote: post #362
redial wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reporters can ask whatever they want, including stupid/uninteresting questions, that's the point. But limiting who can attend is only a move to signal they don't want hard questions and if you ask them you get banned.

Nobody wants hard questions, as such, but I agree it would be good for the President to allow diversity of viewpoints be represented in the press pool. I'm just saying journalists being soft and submissive towards the government with which they are politically aligned is not exactly the new thing that Trump threatens to unleash on us - it has happened many times before.

Allowing only those who are soft to ask questions is new.
Post reply on HN