White House bans fake news media from press briefing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

I think we should wait and see how this pizza thing pans out before we go in to that. :hehe:

---

Maybe it's just me, but it's hard to find these pizza jokes very funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Maybe it's just me, but it's hard to find these pizza jokes very funny.

---

I wasn't joking about the story it's self, I'm talking about Trump, I wouldn't joke about child abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

I wasn't joking about the story it's self, I'm talking about Trump, I wouldn't joke about child abuse.

---

Do you believe there's any truth in it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vimana.

Fascinating and shocking - even if quarter accurate.

Yes, I know it's The Guardian, and not some utterly trustworthy source. .. Such as.... ;)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e_iOSApp_Other

---

"Squawk, fake news, fake news, who's a pretty boy, Polly wants a cracker!"

As you say, shocking even if only a quarter true. Seems some may have been taken in hook, line and sinker - another reason to avoid Facebook.

I haven't witnessed it first hand, yet but it is reported that Trump has been holding forth in a pre-recorded interview on his friend Fox News containing a fair few blame and insinuations - apparently unchallenged, unillustrated and possiby unfounded.

If that is the case, and other MSM's are increasingly branded 'Fake' and depicted as 'untrustworthy', where is the potential for an all-out disinformation program going to be checked? And by whom?

I understand that things were likely dangerous and wrong before, and that the existing political system and media needed a bloody nose, but not with its hands tied behind its back, while we watch, agog?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vimana.

I haven't witnessed it first hand, yet but it is reported that Trump has been holding forth in a pre-recorded interview on his friend Fox News containing a fair few blame and insinuations - apparently unchallenged, unillustrated and possiby unfounded.

If that is the case, and other MSM's are increasingly branded 'Fake' and depicted as 'untrustworthy', where is the potential for an all-out disinformation program going to be checked? And by whom?

I understand that things were likely dangerous and wrong before, and that the existing political system and media needed a bloody nose, but not with its hands tied behind its back, while we watch, agog?

---

Looks like Obama foresaw what was going to happen. In his final press conference he said:

“You’re not supposed to be sycophants; you’re supposed to be skeptics. You’re supposed to ask me tough questions. You’re not supposed to be complimentary, but you’re supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power...

...essential to that is a free press. That is part of how this place, this country, this grand experiment in self-government has to work. It doesn’t work if we don’t have a well-informed citizenry and you are the conduit through which they receive the information about what’s taking place in the halls of power. So, America needs you, and our democracy needs you.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vimana.

I haven't witnessed it first hand, yet but it is reported that Trump has been holding forth in a pre-recorded interview on his friend Fox News containing a fair few blame and insinuations - apparently unchallenged, unillustrated and possiby unfounded.

If that is the case, and other MSM's are increasingly branded 'Fake' and depicted as 'untrustworthy', where is the potential for an all-out disinformation program going to be checked? And by whom?

I understand that things were likely dangerous and wrong before, and that the existing political system and media needed a bloody nose, but not with its hands tied behind its back, while we watch, agog?

---

Agreed, it's a novel approach to try to put right a failing system by making it worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Looks like Obama foresaw what was going to happen. In his final press conference he said:

“You’re not supposed to be sycophants; you’re supposed to be skeptics. You’re supposed to ask me tough questions. You’re not supposed to be complimentary, but you’re supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power...

...essential to that is a free press. That is part of how this place, this country, this grand experiment in self-government has to work. It doesn’t work if we don’t have a well-informed citizenry and you are the conduit through which they receive the information about what’s taking place in the halls of power. So, America needs you, and our democracy needs you.”

---

It's easy to say that when you know that you've got the press in your pocket! From Wikileaks we learned that the MSM were sending their articles to Clinton's team for prior approval and amendment, they were handing over the debate questions to Hillary in advance, and they were also being instructed about what negative stuff they should be writing about Trump. The free press? You are a very funny guy lardy. Either that or you will believe any old crap that is put in front of you :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

It's easy to say that when you know that you've got the press in your pocket! From Wikileaks we learned that the MSM were sending their articles to Clinton's team for prior approval and amendment, they were handing over the debate questions to Hillary in advance, and they were also being instructed about what negative stuff they should be writing about Trump. The free press? You are a very funny guy lardy. Either that or you will believe any old crap that is put in front of you :biggrin:

---

Those were Obama's words, not mine. You're free to take it up with him...just don't tell Daddy that you've been talking to other presidents :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Looks like Obama foresaw what was going to happen. In his final press conference he said:

“You’re not supposed to be sycophants; you’re supposed to be skeptics. You’re supposed to ask me tough questions. You’re not supposed to be complimentary, but you’re supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power...

...essential to that is a free press. That is part of how this place, this country, this grand experiment in self-government has to work. It doesn’t work if we don’t have a well-informed citizenry and you are the conduit through which they receive the information about what’s taking place in the halls of power. So, America needs you, and our democracy needs you.”

---

So tell me again, Obama is the crook that this man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37zvOZ17eSE

is rescuing us from, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Those were Obama's words, not mine. You're free to take it up with him...just don't tell Daddy that you've been talking to other presidents :hehe:

---

In that case, you would have used the phrase 'hoodwinked the public', instead of foresaw what was going to happen :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

In that case, you would have used the word 'hoodwinked' instead of foresaw :biggrin:

---

This makes no sense. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

This makes no sense. :shrug:

---

Take off those dark glasses then :biggrin:

Ok Gluey, putting aside who said the words, and that Obama and Hillary were nasty to Daddy and you have to defend his honour at all times, what of that quote do you disagree with? Do you think all sides of the press should only defend the president (whoever that may be) and he/she should be above criticism and analysis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

So tell me again, Obama is the crook that this man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37zvOZ17eSE

is rescuing us from, right?

---

Number 2 is particularly apt for this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Ok Gluey, putting aside who said the words, and that Obama and Hillary were nasty to Daddy and you have to defend his honour at all times, what of that quote do you disagree with? Do you think all sides of the press should only defend the president (whoever that may be) and he/she should be above criticism and analysis?

---

I am not defending anybody. That speech was made after we learned about the incestuous relationship that existed between the Democrats and the MSM. Now these are not my words, nor Trump's words, they come from the Democrats themselves. So just stick to the facts and stop using diversionary techniques. Now read Obama's words again in the context of the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

I am not defending anybody. That speech was made after we learned about the incestuous relationship that existed between the Democrats and the MSM. Now these are not my words, nor Trump's words, they come from the Democrats themselves. So just stick to the facts and stop using diversionary techniques. Now read Obama's words again in the context of the above.

---

Diversionary techniques. :hehe:

Simple question avoided. All we need to know. Enjoy your day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Diversionary techniques. :hehe:

Simple question avoided. All we need to know. Enjoy your day.

---

OK, I'll help you

“You’re not supposed to be sycophants; you’re supposed to be skeptics. You’re supposed to ask me tough questions. You’re not supposed to be complimentary, but you’re supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power...

...essential to that is a free press. That is part of how this place, this country, this grand experiment in self-government has to work. It doesn’t work if we don’t have a well-informed citizenry and you are the conduit through which they receive the information about what’s taking place in the halls of power. So, America needs you, and our democracy needs you.”

The words above are an inversion of what we know to be true, as disclosed by the democrats themselves. So what is it exactly that Obama foresaw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

OK, I'll help you

“You’re not supposed to be sycophants; you’re supposed to be skeptics. You’re supposed to ask me tough questions. You’re not supposed to be complimentary, but you’re supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power...

...essential to that is a free press. That is part of how this place, this country, this grand experiment in self-government has to work. It doesn’t work if we don’t have a well-informed citizenry and you are the conduit through which they receive the information about what’s taking place in the halls of power. So, America needs you, and our democracy needs you.”

The words above are an inversion of what we know to be true, as disclosed by the democrats themselves. So what is it exactly that Obama foresaw?

---

Are you using the Royal "we" there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Are you using the Royal "we" there?

---

We = the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

..
The words above are an inversion of what we know to be true, as disclosed by the democrats themselves. So what is it exactly that Obama foresaw?

---

As someone still sitting on some rickety ol fence scratching my head (by choice - I'm not coming down yet) I have to say that ^^ therein lies the problem.

Not everybody gets what you refer to, or is aware of it, comprehends it - or believes it.
If that is the case then - evidently - it has not been clearly and undeniably illustrated / illustrated yet.
There could be a number of reasons for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vimana.

As someone still sitting on some rickety ol fence scratching my head (by choice - I'm not coming down yet) I have to say that ^^ therein lies the problem.

Not everybody gets what you refer to, or is aware of it, comprehends it - or believes it.
If that is the case then - evidently - it has not been clearly and undeniably illustrated / illustrated yet.
There could be a number of reasons for that.

---

All a person has to do is read about what was actually going on, as described in the Democratic Party's own words. It should then be clear that the speech above ignored what had already been exposed, with the intention of perpetuating the illusion of a free press, while at the same carrying on as if those disclosures never occured in the first place. It is quite a clever deception as it seems to have fooled most people.

It would make life a lot easier for us if you just gave us a link to their own words instead of stumbling about trying to explain it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

It would make life a lot easier for us if you just gave us a link to their own words instead of stumbling about trying to explain it yourself.

---

Wikileaks.com

Sorry, I forgot you are a bit slow :biggrin:

lardy, this information has been in the public domain for months, and many publications have reported on it. Why do you think Trump refers to the MSM as fake news? Do you think he suddenly woke up one morning and decided to invent that phrase? You probably haven't heard about it, because the only people who have never reported on it are the MSM themselves. Make of that what you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

All a person has to do is read about what was actually going on, as described in the Democratic Party's own words. It should then be clear that the speech above ignored what had already been exposed, with the intention of perpetuating the illusion of a free press, while at the same carrying on as if those disclosures never occured in the first place. It is quite a clever deception as it seems to have fooled most people.

---

The other problem is that - if this is true, then what is replacing it seems to be looking to do exactly the same. Only in a very different style.

It is a bit like 'drain the swamp'. Damn right - Go Donald! - It needed draining.
But has he done that? - Is he simply re-filling it with more swamp water?

Whatever, I cannot find the spirit nor the faith to open the popcorn, kick back and gaze upon these events as some fascinating spectacle or inconsequential global comedy-drama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vimana.

The other problem is that - if this is true, then what is replacing it seems to be looking to do exactly the same. Only in a very different style.

It is a bit like 'drain the swamp'. Damn right - Go Donald! - It needed draining.
But has he done that? - Is he simply re-filling it with more swamp water?

Whatever, I cannot find the spirit nor the faith to open the popcorn, kick back and gaze upon these events as some fascinating spectacle or inconsequential global comedy-drama.

---

Good point, but I think it is too soon to call, and that is why I am still sitting on the fence. Going after the human trafickers is a big development. There have been1500 arrests in under a month, compared with 400 in a whole year under Obama. I'm not sure why the MSM aren't covering this though, or the busts in Norway and Canada, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Good point, but I think it is too soon to call, and that is why I am still sitting on the fence. Going after the human trafickers is a big development. There have been1500 arrests in under a month, compared with 400 in a whole year under Obama. I'm not sure why the MSM aren't covering this though, or the busts in Norway and Canada, etc.

---

I guess it depends where you get your news

http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/27/tr...ex-trafficking

I have no idea!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Do you believe there's any truth in it?

---

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion either way to be honest, what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veg1960

I guess it depends where you get your news

http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/27/tr...ex-trafficking

I have no idea!

---

Thanks for the link.

I look forward to some new gymnastic spin from Gluey with his own 'alternative facts'. Meanwhile, in the real world....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Thanks for the link.

I look forward to some new gymnastic spin from Gluey with his own 'alternative facts'. Meanwhile, in the real world....

---

I have to chuckle sometimes.

He says to Lardy earlier in the thread "Either that or you will believe any old crap that is put in front of you"

Then states as fact that in the period Saint Donald has been in power, there have been 45 sex traffickers arrested for every one arrested under Obama in the same period. Not double, not triple, a 45 fold increase:hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion either way to be honest, what do you think?

---

I think it's abhorrent that anyone could publicly accuse others of being involved in child kidnapping, abuse, rape and murder with no evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Thanks for the link.

I look forward to some new gymnastic spin from Gluey with his own 'alternative facts'. Meanwhile, in the real world....

---

There you go again focussing on the less relevant issues. Some people are going to dispute the figures, and for whatever reason the MSM don't seem very keen to highlight any of this. The fact is the crackdown is a major government policy that was announced last week. We will just have to wait and see what further developments unfold. I have noted that you are one of the biggest deniers that any wrongdoing is occuring with regards to children, let's just hope you are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veg1960

I have to chuckle sometimes.

He says to Lardy earlier in the thread "Either that or you will believe any old crap that is put in front of you"

Then states as fact that in the period Saint Donald has been in power, there have been 45 sex traffickers arrested for every one arrested under Obama in the same period. Not double, not triple, a 45 fold increase:hehe:

---

Even if those numbers were correct, you'd have to be monumentally gullible to think that the operations could have happened literally overnight from nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I think it's abhorrent that anyone could publicly accuse others of being involved in child kidnapping, abuse, rape and murder with no evidence.

---

Most rational people are saying that things seem a bit odd, and maybe it needs investigating. It's generally the deniers who are coming out with the stuff that you are saying. Everybody knows you need an investigation to gather evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Even if those numbers were correct, you'd have to be monumentally gullible to think that the operations could have happened literally overnight from nothing.

---

You are assuming that the law enforcement agencies don't collect vast amounts of intelligence data. Holding and acting on this data are two separate things. They certainly knew where all the illegal immigrants were situated when the orders came through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Most rational people are saying that things seem a bit odd, and maybe it needs investigating. It's generally the deniers who are coming out with the stuff that you are saying. Everybody knows you need an investigation to gather evidence.

---

I'd say the same no matter who was being accused. But if rational people say it needs investigating then I'm sure Daddy will set one up. Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

You are assuming that the law enforcement agencies don't collect vast amounts of intelligence data. Holding and acting on this data are two separate things. They certainly knew where all the illegal immigrants are situated.

---

And the resources to act up on this were made available immediately despite, as you say, the policy only being announced last week? Right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

You are assuming that the law enforcement agencies don't collect vast amounts of intelligence data. Holding and acting on this data are two separate things. They certainly knew where all the illegal immigrants are situated.

---

You are the one that stated the numbers as fact. You used the numbers to give support your argument. You should be able to back them up or be man enough to admit they are (clearly) fake

Are you now saying that the under Obama, for every sex trafficker arrested the police knew where another 45 were, but chose to do nothing about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I'd say the same no matter who was being accused. But if rational people say it needs investigating then I'm sure Daddy will set one up. Right?

---

The people involved should be encouraging an investigation if they have nothing to hide. It's not as though young children are able to speak out, so I think it would benefit everybody.