Living with the Trump presidency

I don't think the word 'simply' is appropriate. It's absolutely horrifying what happened and absolutely classic totalitarian dictatorship behaviour.

I am most certainly not condoning Trump for excluding some media organisations, I think it better to challenge what they say and prove your point, if of course you can.

I never have, never will defend Trump over his actions but the Fake News industry whether it be ' posts on social media', the press, twitter etc. etc. has gone into overdrive and whether it is Trump, The Queen or Uncle Tom Cobley Fake News is dangerous to believe and swallow as gospel truth.

I make no apology for raising Fake News stories if and when I see them but wouldn't it be better if there was a personal responsibility not to engage with such crap in the first place.

I am pleased to see Parliament is starting to look into Fake News at long last!

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news-parliament-2015/fake-news-launch-16-17/

This was an informal press briefing, not the normal WH press conference. Will see what happens at the next one of those!

So what is next to be banned... the FBI, will he want it dissolved like he wants to dump the EPA?

My fellow expats might remember this advert slogan that I have appropriated...

A day without Trump is like a day WITH sunshine!

Lewlew

The problem is fellow Gransnetters also ' remember ' reading The Pope now backs Trump, Trump is a member of the KKK etc..

If posters stop with posting such rubbish then surely it would give more credence to the issues.

I agree POGS and even if they believe the fake news themselves, better not to spread it around as if it's Gospel.

And we never got so much of a word of apology for that fake news KKK post, did we...

There is enough real jaw dropping stuff about Trump without anybody making it up.

More pearl clutching <sighs>. Anyone on GN who reads a link that contains quite eye widening information and believes its content without any triangulation is quite frankly being ridiculous. We live now in a social media world, there are multiple sources of information and some very very questionable ( to say the least) sites and sources. It behoves us all to check and verify for ourselves information that has some import. So if for example a link said that Princess Beatrice had got engaged, as I couldn't give a flying fig whether this is true or not and the world would keep turning either way, I'd ignore it. When I first heard about DT banning certain news organisations from a WH briefing, which if true does matter, I read the story on various legitimate outlets and then believed it. Personally I only link to sources that I believe very sincerely are legitimate but I don't gasp in horror if, very occasionally, a rubbish link is posted. I do object to posters putting false information in their posts that they could very easily Google to check - such as LD's having the majority of seats in the HL or that poor JC de M jumped over the barrier.

rosesarered, yes, I did mean that Trump had "simply" banned those news outlets from the White House, rather than from the world. Sorry if my post wasn't clear. Seriously though, do you think it's ok for the POTUS to ban respectable news outlets from his press briefings because he doesn't like what they print? Perhaps you don't and that, like me, your words were mis spoken

Rigby, it wasn't a link. It was a quote from an article, posted by a GN member who either actually believed it or thought it was funny to post it.

Either way, GNHQ removed it.

Yes, Lewlew, this was a news briefing on Friday and, in theory, journalists from a range of news agencies are invited. The White House claimed that there was not enough room for everyone, so the choice was made to exclude some. It just so happened that those excluded were those who have criticised Trump the most and whom he accuses of fake news.

However, recording of the briefing by journalists was allowed and they subsequently shared these with excluded colleagues.

Let's see what happens at the next briefing... And who actually attends the traditional White House Dinner for journalists. The list of those choosing not to go is growng. This time, the excluded are excluding themselves. So far, even some of those invited last Friday have also said they will not attend the dinner( i.e. Time magazine)
I think there will be much internal support amongst colleagues as even Fox News( beloved of Trump) expressed discomfort with the exclusions.

But we all know the DT mentality now. He will laugh this off as "losers, bigly" but how will those around him react and at what point will they start to question...?

Re Guantanamo, it is not shut. Obama tried to shut it as a last presidential act but did not succeed.

Oh! I think I posted somewhere that Gitmo was closed, so that was wrong. Hey ho. Wishful thinking on my part.

It is an interesting development with the exclusion of some media outlets, but I have a feeling it has happened before. But I might be wrong.

POGS With all humble respect... Help! I don't understand your post.

It was only a small briefing, not the formal WH press conference.

I was wondering if he'd ban the FBI, he has now harshly critised them. I wonder if he will fire Comey.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-blames-fbi-failing-stop-media-leaks-45710332

He is going to dissolve the EPA if he can get that done. He considers it a redundant department.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-plans-to-abolish-environmental-protection-agency

The day without sunshine is an Anita Bryant orange juice advert from several decades ago in the US.

Iam64 I thought that was what you meant ( but you can't suppose anything on GN!)
To answer your question of 'do I think it is ok for the POTUS to exclude certain press members' ....am not sure why you ask really? Lewlew has outlined the facts of it, but although it seems a petty act ( to exclude them) it wasn't the usual briefing, and there is nothing to say that they won't be invited from now on.Probably his way of showing them that he is displeased with them.We will have to see what happens.

Ww

"Oh! I think I posted somewhere that Gitmo was closed, so that was wrong. Hey ho. Wishful thinking on my part. "

Well at least that answers my question to you at 14.01.

You also said "Probably so he can set up all the torture he's so keen on.".

As you say Hey ho.

edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/fbi-refused-white-house-request-to-knock-down-recent-trump-russia-stories/index.html

CNN goes with your abc news, Lewlew.

Lewlew, do you know anything about this group?

occupydemocrats.com/

POTUS has just tweeted that he will not be present at The White House Correspondants Dinner. It is traditional for the President to attend.

Antagonism big time. He has pre-empted the snub by snubbing them! Also, he will not now need to acknowledge a half empty event and all that signifies.

Link or quote it doesn't matter - my point stands. Some of you are infantilising posters on here by suggesting we believe anything that's posted and are too stupid to check it out for ourselves. Well if we are that stupid we shouldn't come and play on GN and if we aren't then you should treat us with more respect. But hey why let logic get in the way of having yet another go at dj whilst allowing any rubbish or lies that the 'righties' post stand uncriticised. So GNHQ removed a quote/link <faints whilst clutching pearls>

More pearl clutching <sighs>. Anyone on GN who reads a link that contains quite eye widening information and believes its content without any triangulation is quite frankly being ridiculous. We live now in a social media world, there are multiple sources of information and some very very questionable ( to say the least) sites and sources. It behoves us all to check and verify for ourselves information that has some import.

when some of this information that is disseminated appears to come from a reputable source as much of it did before the Presidential election, then people worldwide will believe it. They will then vote according to their beliefs. We on GN can chat away about what may or may not be true but most of us did not have a vote in that election so it doesn't really matter one way or another.
And how many people check or double check what they have been told or what has been hinted at in huge rallies such as the ones they had in the States?

Rigby46

" Well if we are that stupid we shouldn't come and play on GN and if we aren't then you should treat us with more respect".

The point is some of us are not 'that stupid' and don't wish to 'play' on GN. As for respect it has to be earned and producing links / quotes or comments that are Fake News is NOT 'respecting' posters nor this Forum.

'Infantilising' hmm. I guess we can all see that in others from time to time.

I like that, Rinouchka. Do you think if we say we will not turn up when he comes over here that he will decline May's invitation, or is the pull of royalty too great for him?

Excellent suggestion, dj!
Almost beginning to (faintly)like Shep Smith(Fox News) for going on air to defend CNN and other excluded news organisations( watch him on youtube).
As I said previously, amongst many of the "courtiers" of King D, the penny is beginning to drop( slowly).

Well POGs you spectacularly missed the point that all your faux outage at 'fake news' links implies that we are too stupid to check out information given on here and blindly follow one link/ quote and believe it - and that's infantilising. Let's be honest - you just pearl clutch about the issue becaus it was posted by dj so it's just another excuse to have a go at her. Anyone would think GN is awash with fake news - it's certainly awash with hypocrisy. And if posting 'fake news' is not respecting posters, what is posting lies that posters are too idle to check? One law etc....And come to think of it, there are several posters on GN I haven't got an ounce of respect for. Not you btw ( if it matters) because at least your posts do address issues, you come back with facts and real arguments and don't just post snidely snipey comments which never contribute to the discussion and which oh so cleverly stay within the guidelines.

What I can't understand is why in this world was DT ever chosen as the Republican candidate in the first place?!! It would appear that everyone knew exactly what sort of person he was and in the event of winning, he would would be highly unsuitable. Is there something at the bottom of this charade? something that the public at large cannot at any costs become aware? However fanciful,is DT a distraction?! Because on the surface it all seems inexplicable and very weird! it does make you wonder!!