Acosta got his pass back temporarily but I am going to expect him to fundamentally lose the battle in court.
I am expecting the courts rule “the press” are organizations and not single individuals and since CNN still has appropriate cover with other individuals in their organization, their first admendment rights haven’t been infringed upon. It will also rule that Acosta pass can be revoked for “the disruption of the first admendment” but also instruct the government to create an independent council which oversees these decisions in x amount of days and no other credentials can be revoked until this council is in place.
The last part is wishful thinking. Depends on the judges involved.
Acosta got his pass back temporarily but I am going to expect him to fundamentally lose the battle in court.
I am expecting the courts rule “the press” are organizations and not single individuals and since CNN still has appropriate cover with other individuals in their organization, their first admendment rights haven’t been infringed upon. It will also rule that Acosta pass can be revoked for “the disruption of the first admendment” but also instruct the government to create an independent council which oversees these decisions in x amount of days and no other credentials can be revoked until this council is in place.
The last part is wishful thinking. Depends on the judges involved.
The courts also can't force Trump to not ignore Acosta from now on whether he's at the press conferences or not...
Acosta got his pass back temporarily but I am going to expect him to fundamentally lose the battle in court.
I am expecting the courts rule “the press” are organizations and not single individuals and since CNN still has appropriate cover with other individuals in their organization, their first admendment rights haven’t been infringed upon. It will also rule that Acosta pass can be revoked for “the disruption of the first admendment” but also instruct the government to create an independent council which oversees these decisions in x amount of days and no other credentials can be revoked until this council is in place.
The last part is wishful thinking. Depends on the judges involved.
The courts also can't force Trump to not ignore Acosta from now on whether he's at the press conferences or not...
That incident was the first press conference Trump had held in well over a year. They just flat-out stopped doing them after the Charlottesville debacle. To ignore questions, you have to be available to take them in the first place. Another thing every other President was expected to occasionally do and Trump gets a complete and utter pass on. The only thing he ever does is answer questions that get yelled to him while he is walking across the White House lawn and 90% of those are answered with "fake news" or "that's a dumb question". It's the I'm rubber, you're glue Presidency.
I've not mentioned this before, so I'll say it now while I'm thinking about it: I've been thinking about the 2008 election, and I'm wondering if I might have voted for John McCain if I had the option of going back and trying again. This isn't because my opinion of Obama has changed much (though it has); it's because campaign finance reform has seemed increasingly important to me, since our corrupt campaign system is the root of multiple different systemic problems with our politics.
If John McCain had won in 2008, he would have found himself confronted with a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. That would have frustrated a lot of his right-leaning policies, but that would have been an excellent opportunity to implement campaign finance reform, since we'd have relatively strong support for it in both the White House and Congress. I think that would have done more for our country in the long run than Obamacare.
I've not mentioned this before, so I'll say it now while I'm thinking about it: I've been thinking about the 2008 election, and I'm wondering if I might have voted for John McCain if I had the option of going back and trying again. This isn't because my opinion of Obama has changed much (though it has); it's because campaign finance reform has seemed increasingly important to me, since our corrupt campaign system is the root of multiple different systemic problems with our politics.
If John McCain had won in 2008, he would have found himself confronted with a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. That would have frustrated a lot of his right-leaning policies, but that would have been an excellent opportunity to implement campaign finance reform, since we'd have relatively strong support for it in both the White House and Congress. I think that would have done more for our country in the long run than Obamacare.
And a practical guarantee of 4 more years in Iraq. McCain was even more hawkish on the war than Bush was. Any campaign finance policies passed by his Administration and the Congress would have been invalidated by Citizens United in 2010, which was a case that was going to take place no matter who had won. His party had also ran the country into a ditch, and despite the glowing praise for him after his death, it's just a straight-up fact he was the biggest supporter of the Iraq War in Congress. Also, Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It was a wholly irresponsible pick (that I do believe he genuinely regretted) that paved the way for Trump's takeover of the party.
So you're basically trading the progress of the Obama years on healthcare availability, gay rights, and a knowable FACT that he restored the economy for a guarantee of a doubling-down (again) in the Middle-East, a stuck in the mud economic policy, and (at best) two years of a hypothetical campaign finance system that the Roberts court would have gutted anyway.
The McCain who ran the straight-talk express against Bush in the 2000 primary was NOT the same one who was served up as the general election candidate in 2008. I can't even begin to express how sick and tired of being sick and tired most liberals were of what had taken place during the Bush Administration by 2008. I wouldn't have voted for a Republican if someone was holding a gun to my head at that point. We spent 8 years being ridiculed despite predicting almost to a tee the disaster that ended up unfolding on both the economy and foreign policy. And what happened to Obama the moment he took office to clean up the shit-show?? Complaints that he wasn't doing it fast enough. The Bush Administration was an abject disaster and McCain had it tied to him like an anchor, because he made the calculated decision to do so. Iraq and the economy both collapsed into chaos. He had to answer for both.
People need to now understand that the battle over campaign finance is OVER without a Constitutional Amendment. It's done. And this is a direct result of the 5-4 decision that was made by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. Every last one of them appointed by a Republican President. Everyone on both sides of the aisle despises our campaign system of what are essentially bribes, yet ignores the elephant standing right in the center of the room, which is that every vote for it was brought to you by the Supreme Court picks of ONE party. In the dissent were 3 Justices picked by Democrats (Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor) and John Paul Stevens, who was still around from the Ford Administration. Meanwhile, Obama's pick to REPLACE Stevens was Elena Kagan, who argued in this very case as Solicitor General to protect the campaign finance reforms that had been put in place.
The Brexit debate in the UK is hotting up with the announcement that officials have agreed a draft break-up agreement. It seems very likely that will be confirmed by all the other EU countries as they have kept a strong line to date in support of the negotiations.
Whether it will be agreed by the UK Parliament is quite another matter. There has been a recent rash of resignations from May's cabinet - by both Brexiteers and remainers (including the minister who was actually in charge of the Brexit negotiations). The fact that both sides of the debate feel what's been agreed is poor might be an indication that May has found a good compromise position - or it might be an indication that it's just a bad deal. As of today it seems very unlikely that May will be able to get the deal through Parliament. I think she is hoping that when it comes to it many MPs will vote for the deal rather than see a no-deal exit. If that was the only choice she might well be right. However, the calls for a 2nd referendum on the issue are continuing to grow and I suspect that most remainers will believe that if Parliament rejects the current deal that a further referendum would be achievable. May is saying that will not happen, but if the deal is rejected then her position as prime minister would be untenable anyway.
I thought I might mention one other potential impact of Brexit that hasn't been much discussed. The impact on Scotland has been widely considered and there's still the possibility that a second independence referendum could be triggered there by them being pulled out of the EU against their will. However, there's a similar constitutional implication for Northern Ireland which hasn't received much attention.
The Good Friday Agreement, which ended the 'troubles' was an ingenious mechanism for allowing some people in NI to consider themselves Irish, while others considered themselves British. The agreement's worked very well in reducing conflicts, but one of its provisions was that the UK government is required (not permitted) to hold a referendum on a reunification of Ireland as soon as it appears there is a majority for that in NI. Demographic changes, with relative increases in Catholic populations, have been gently pushing people towards that for a while, but there still wouldn't have been calls for a referendum in the short term. However, the Brexit process may well mean that significant numbers of the younger generation of Protestants would support a reunited Ireland and could lead to a referendum in the relatively near future. The younger generation have lived in peace times with a friendly Republic of Ireland and don't necessarily have the same emotional attachments to the UK as their parents. The Republic has also changed in other ways in the last 20 years. It is a generally more prosperous country than NI and also (rather surprisingly) has become in recent years more socially liberal than NI over attitudes to things like immigration, gay marriage and abortion. As young adults are generally more socially liberal than their parents this increases the potential attraction of a reunited Ireland.
It's not at all inconceivable that the Brexit process, that was intended to allow the UK to 'take back control' from the EU, will result in the break up of the UK itself.
Acosta got his pass back temporarily but I am going to expect him to fundamentally lose the battle in court.
I am expecting the courts rule “the press” are organizations and not single individuals and since CNN still has appropriate cover with other individuals in their organization, their first admendment rights haven’t been infringed upon. It will also rule that Acosta pass can be revoked for “the disruption of the first admendment” but also instruct the government to create an independent council which oversees these decisions in x amount of days and no other credentials can be revoked until this council is in place.
The last part is wishful thinking. Depends on the judges involved.
I don't see how Trump doesn't take that standard (there's other reporters) and abuse it to force CNN (and everyone he doesn't like) to only supply reporters who bow down to his whims and don't push back on his lies.
You can have reporters, CNN, but only if they ask the questions I like. That's what he wants.
An independent commission would be interesting. Didn't someone post here about Canada's system where the Press itself is in charge of these things?
Acosta got his pass back temporarily but I am going to expect him to fundamentally lose the battle in court.
I am expecting the courts rule “the press” are organizations and not single individuals and since CNN still has appropriate cover with other individuals in their organization, their first admendment rights haven’t been infringed upon. It will also rule that Acosta pass can be revoked for “the disruption of the first admendment” but also instruct the government to create an independent council which oversees these decisions in x amount of days and no other credentials can be revoked until this council is in place.
The last part is wishful thinking. Depends on the judges involved.
I don't see how Trump doesn't take that standard (there's other reporters) and abuse it to force CNN (and everyone he doesn't like) to only supply reporters who bow down to his whims and don't push back on his lies.
You can have reporters, CNN, but only if they ask the questions I like. That's what he wants.
An independent commission would be interesting. Didn't someone post here about Canada's system where the Press itself is in charge of these things?
No. Because I agree with Trump in that when he was asked to give the microphone up after asking a question he should have. He’s not there to debate the president on semantics. Him doing that limits the amount of questions and time other journalist have in asking questions.
His question should have been: “You have labeled the families coming north seeking asylum as invaders. Can you define what you mean when you use the word invasion in your tweets. How are these Asylum seekers invading the U.S?”
By the journalist choosing the words properly (asylum over immigration), it can force a more constructive response, or a single follow up of “how is seeking asylum illegal?” and bury him that way.
Sanders even said it wasn’t the line of questioning or tough questioning but his rude behaviour (they back tracked on the assault, and even Trump himself said the assault wasn’t that bad) and his refusal to relinquish the microphone after he got the answer to his question: which he did.
And I was the one that posted the Canadian system. In the American system, there was always unwritten rules and behaviours (such as allowing others to ask questions) which I think need to be actually be written down and enforced especially if I believe the courts are going to rule “the press” as organizations.
Acosta got his pass back temporarily but I am going to expect him to fundamentally lose the battle in court.
I am expecting the courts rule “the press” are organizations and not single individuals and since CNN still has appropriate cover with other individuals in their organization, their first admendment rights haven’t been infringed upon. It will also rule that Acosta pass can be revoked for “the disruption of the first admendment” but also instruct the government to create an independent council which oversees these decisions in x amount of days and no other credentials can be revoked until this council is in place.
The last part is wishful thinking. Depends on the judges involved.
I don't see how Trump doesn't take that standard (there's other reporters) and abuse it to force CNN (and everyone he doesn't like) to only supply reporters who bow down to his whims and don't push back on his lies.
You can have reporters, CNN, but only if they ask the questions I like. That's what he wants.
An independent commission would be interesting. Didn't someone post here about Canada's system where the Press itself is in charge of these things?
No. Because I agree with Trump in that when he was asked to give the microphone up after asking a question he should have. He’s not there to debate the president on semantics. Him doing that limits the amount of questions and time other journalist have in asking questions.
His question should have been: “You have labeled the families coming north seeking asylum as invaders. Can you define what you mean when you use the word invasion in your tweets. How are these Asylum seekers invading the U.S?”
By the journalist choosing the words properly (asylum over immigration), it can force a more constructive response, or a single follow up of “how is seeking asylum illegal?” and bury him that way.
Sanders even said it wasn’t the line of questioning or tough questioning but his rude behaviour (they back tracked on the assault, and even Trump himself said the assault wasn’t that bad) and his refusal to relinquish the microphone after he got the answer to his question: which he did.
And I was the one that posted the Canadian system. In the American system, there was always unwritten rules and behaviours (such as allowing others to ask questions) which I think need to be actually be written down and enforced especially if I believe the courts are going to rule “the press” as organizations.
She specifically accused him of basically assaulting the woman who tried to take the microphone from him, which wasn't only a flat-out lie, but as far as I'm concerned straight-up slander. She then actively promoted a doctored video in which his arm speed was specifically altered to make incidental contact that could generously be described as a brush of two people's arms to look like a karate chop. The White House forfeited any high ground they may have held (a laughable concept for this group of cretins in the first place) when they started promoting Infowars conspiracy theories about what took place.
It wasn't that they thought Acosta "put his hands" on the woman trying to take the microphone and were mistaken. They knew he wasn't, lied about it anyway because they knew a certain segment of the population would believe it no matter what, and then the official spokesman of the Executive Branch of the government pointed people towards an altered video as proof, a video they damn well KNEW was altered, because everyone was watching the actual one dozens of times on social media when the credentials were revoked. No matter what the opinion of Acosta is, the ONLY thing that is of any actual importance in this story is that this White House was engaging in balls to the walls Orwellian propaganda techniques. And it isn't even a close call. Stop repeating the word "assault" when talking about this. That is what the entire purpose of their 48-hour charade on this topic was all about. Throw that narrative into the air for two days, then "backtrack". What a load of absolute bullshit. There was no assault, there wasn't anything more than incidental contact that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to avoid when someone walks up to you unawares and tries to grab something out of your hand. I won't sit here and pretend it was anything different. I watched the video dozens of times.
Acosta asked his perhaps poorly worded question about the (now unimportant) invasion but Trump's response was basically "its an invasion because I said it's an invasion and you are an asshole".
There is no way Trump was going to answer that question in good faith. Why? Because he's lying, there is no deeper meaning behind the curtain. He wants to lie and control what is truth. He called it an invasion because he wanted to in order to fearmonger his cult of followers and not any other reason based in reality.
I'm fine with reform but allowing the White House to dictate the truth by picking their journalists is their goal and must be prevented or we will end up even further down the fascist road we are currently taking. That was only the third solo press conference of Trumps Presidency. It will be a long time probably before he does another. He fired Sessions about an hour after the press conference so he would not have to answer questions about that at all.
No Republican can be trusted currently. They might regain their senses once Trump is gone but I'm not holding out much hope, I remember the George W. Bush years all too well.
One. I already said the White House has backtracked on the assault claim and their defence against the lawsuit is about Acosta not giving up the microphone after he was asked to give up and attempted to hijack the briefing. His next question that was interrupted was on the Russia investigation, so he cannot even label it a follow up question on invasion. I read an article that explained Trump, clearly agitated took a step back from the podium to compose himself before continuing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/07/donald-trump-jim-acosta-white-house-news-conference/1920107002/
CNN will bring up their orginal excuse as to why he was banned, where the White House will say it was a poorly worded tweet, and they were unaware that the video used was doctored, and they thought it was just zoomed in. The latter being a lie, but it’ll be up to CNN to prove that last part is a falsehood.
SCOTUS’s official story on the defence is him being rude to staff and him not giving up the microphone when asked. Expect White House Lawyers to trot out journalist, and past officials (from both parties) and press secretaries (once again, both parties) explaining the proper etiquette on these briefings and then showcasing how Acosta has broken these unwritten rules numerous times. (Like the time he was yelling at the back of the room while the president was speaking and another journalist actually turned around to shush him).
It’ll be up to the judge to determine if it is warranted or not, however, the judge will have to weigh what type of behaviour would be inappropriate (throwing a shoe?) when dealing with freedom of the press.
Two. It’s not Trump’s fault that the question was worded poorly. It’s Acosta’s. Once again, Acosta, or any other journalist isn’t there to debate the president. One of the first things you learn in journalism school is “you cover the story, you are not the story.” Acosta continuously breaks this rule. This briefing, the first time since NAFTA iirc that the press had access to the president. If the only story that came out of it was Acosta being an idiot, it is completely unfair to other news organizations who may have been looking for other angles or storylines. It’s great for CNN because it is free publicity. This whole briefing was wasted because of Acosta.
Three. Trump will not be able to pick which journalist will be able to cover him. There has to be good reason to take away a person’s credentials. It’s also why I think it is a good thing that this is going in to the courts. It should be a controlled discussion there with little political sway (once again, depending on the judge) which may promote better legislation. With a Democratic house, this legislation will lean more favourably towards individual journalistic freedoms but the age of civility is over. Both Trump and Acosta have proven that. Time for some common sense ground rules.
Edit: here is a great read from The Atlantic regarding where this may end up if it continues in the court and what Trump can and cannot claim regarding taking away press passes.
It was not a poorly worded tweet. It was a coordinated and pre-planned attack on a certain member of the media facilitated by the help of the absolute fringes of right-wing media. Because Trump cannot exist in any scenario by standing on his own. He must have a foil 24/7/365. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, George Soros, Jim Acosta, it does not matter WHO it is. One day it's Canada, the next day it's a reporter who asks him a question he doesn't like, the next day he's strutting around stage while thousands of people chant for his vanquished political rival to be jailed.
Stacey Abrams conceded defeat rewarding the Governorship of Georgia to Brian Kemp who oversaw his own election and disenfranchised thousands in order to win office. So voter suppression, voter purges win again in the south.
He will be rewarded for his efforts and be able to further implement voter purges and voter suppression. Bad guys win one there, again.
Stacey Abrams conceded defeat rewarding the Governorship of Georgia to Brian Kemp who oversaw his own election and disenfranchised thousands in order to win office. So voter suppression, voter purges win again in the south.
He will be rewarded for his efforts and be able to further implement voter purges and voter suppression. Bad guys win one there, again.
"Democracy"
She actually didn't really concede. She just said that, essentially, Kemp was going to become the Governor of Georgia. We detailed Kemp's shenanigans weeks and months and advance in this thread, and the election margin was WAY closer than even I expected. It is inconceivable it didn't at least cause the fractional margin that prevented the run-off, if not responsibility for the win entirely. We seriously forgetting he accused Democrats of hacking the voter rolls two days before the election and plastered it on the official website of the Secretary of State?? It is now November 16th. Where is the f*****g evidence of this, even a scintilla of it?? It's been nearly two weeks. How can he possibly be getting a pass for that accusation as the SITTING Secretary of State. We haven't heard a goddamn thing about it since. Because he made it up out of whole cloth. They do this shit because it works and they get away with it.
The hacking thing was a Democratic guy told him "hey your website is not secure, it uses terrible first grader encryption". So Kemp said OMG Democrat hackerz! and then turned around and did nothing to secure the website.
Nice link, because now I know Kellyanne Conway's husband is a Federalist Society lawyer.
“We believe in the rule of law, the power of truth, the independence of the criminal justice system, the imperative of individual rights and the necessity of civil discourse,”
You f-ing kidding? What part of that is remotely related to Trump?
“There’s a perception out there that conservative lawyers have essentially sold their souls for judges and regulatory reform,” Mr. Conway said.
Can we recognize that Trump didn't have to call on Acosta? This whole press thing - having the poor intern girl try to forcibly grab the microphone away, using a doctored video, revoking his hard pass, then changing up the excuse for revoking the hard pass - it was all manufactured by Trump and Sanders. Why? Presumably to gin up an excuse to create these new "guidelines" on conduct they are going to publish. Which are stupid and unnecessary. But what can you say, these people care more about political theater and attention than about policy and governing.
Not really. I do wish an independent and unbiased person would be writing up the guidelines but they are needed because of the political theatre that they have been displaying.
It could have been a set up and it wouldn’t be the first time this administration has set up a news organization to get what they want. But if it was, once again that’s on Acosta for falling for it.
Majority of journalist do not act this way and it is harder for them to their job if this type of showmanship continues.
I'd say what is making it hard for journalists to do their job is getting called "the enemy of the people" on a daily basis and getting sent homemade pipe bombs by radicalized Trump supporters who internalize every ounce of that language. I wonder what the how we are going to "both sides" it when one of them (or a number of them) end up getting murdered, because sooner or later it's going to happen.
One. I already said the White House has backtracked on the assault claim and their defence against the lawsuit is about Acosta not giving up the microphone after he was asked to give up and attempted to hijack the briefing. His next question that was interrupted was on the Russia investigation, so he cannot even label it a follow up question on invasion. I read an article that explained Trump, clearly agitated took a step back from the podium to compose himself before continuing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/07/donald-trump-jim-acosta-white-house-news-conference/1920107002/
Why was he agitated? Did Acosta walk up and start kissing him and grab his genitals?
One. I already said the White House has backtracked on the assault claim and their defence against the lawsuit is about Acosta not giving up the microphone after he was asked to give up and attempted to hijack the briefing. His next question that was interrupted was on the Russia investigation, so he cannot even label it a follow up question on invasion. I read an article that explained Trump, clearly agitated took a step back from the podium to compose himself before continuing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/07/donald-trump-jim-acosta-white-house-news-conference/1920107002/
Why was he agitated? Did Acosta walk up and start kissing him and grab his genitals?
They let you do that when you are famous. You don't even have to wait.
One. I already said the White House has backtracked on the assault claim and their defence against the lawsuit is about Acosta not giving up the microphone after he was asked to give up and attempted to hijack the briefing. His next question that was interrupted was on the Russia investigation, so he cannot even label it a follow up question on invasion. I read an article that explained Trump, clearly agitated took a step back from the podium to compose himself before continuing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/07/donald-trump-jim-acosta-white-house-news-conference/1920107002/
Why was he agitated? Did Acosta walk up and start kissing him and grab his genitals?
They let you do that when you are famous. You don't even have to wait.
Comments
I am expecting the courts rule “the press” are organizations and not single individuals and since CNN still has appropriate cover with other individuals in their organization, their first admendment rights haven’t been infringed upon. It will also rule that Acosta pass can be revoked for “the disruption of the first admendment” but also instruct the government to create an independent council which oversees these decisions in x amount of days and no other credentials can be revoked until this council is in place.
The last part is wishful thinking. Depends on the judges involved.
If John McCain had won in 2008, he would have found himself confronted with a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. That would have frustrated a lot of his right-leaning policies, but that would have been an excellent opportunity to implement campaign finance reform, since we'd have relatively strong support for it in both the White House and Congress. I think that would have done more for our country in the long run than Obamacare.
So you're basically trading the progress of the Obama years on healthcare availability, gay rights, and a knowable FACT that he restored the economy for a guarantee of a doubling-down (again) in the Middle-East, a stuck in the mud economic policy, and (at best) two years of a hypothetical campaign finance system that the Roberts court would have gutted anyway.
The McCain who ran the straight-talk express against Bush in the 2000 primary was NOT the same one who was served up as the general election candidate in 2008. I can't even begin to express how sick and tired of being sick and tired most liberals were of what had taken place during the Bush Administration by 2008. I wouldn't have voted for a Republican if someone was holding a gun to my head at that point. We spent 8 years being ridiculed despite predicting almost to a tee the disaster that ended up unfolding on both the economy and foreign policy. And what happened to Obama the moment he took office to clean up the shit-show?? Complaints that he wasn't doing it fast enough. The Bush Administration was an abject disaster and McCain had it tied to him like an anchor, because he made the calculated decision to do so. Iraq and the economy both collapsed into chaos. He had to answer for both.
People need to now understand that the battle over campaign finance is OVER without a Constitutional Amendment. It's done. And this is a direct result of the 5-4 decision that was made by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. Every last one of them appointed by a Republican President. Everyone on both sides of the aisle despises our campaign system of what are essentially bribes, yet ignores the elephant standing right in the center of the room, which is that every vote for it was brought to you by the Supreme Court picks of ONE party. In the dissent were 3 Justices picked by Democrats (Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor) and John Paul Stevens, who was still around from the Ford Administration. Meanwhile, Obama's pick to REPLACE Stevens was Elena Kagan, who argued in this very case as Solicitor General to protect the campaign finance reforms that had been put in place.
Whether it will be agreed by the UK Parliament is quite another matter. There has been a recent rash of resignations from May's cabinet - by both Brexiteers and remainers (including the minister who was actually in charge of the Brexit negotiations). The fact that both sides of the debate feel what's been agreed is poor might be an indication that May has found a good compromise position - or it might be an indication that it's just a bad deal. As of today it seems very unlikely that May will be able to get the deal through Parliament. I think she is hoping that when it comes to it many MPs will vote for the deal rather than see a no-deal exit. If that was the only choice she might well be right. However, the calls for a 2nd referendum on the issue are continuing to grow and I suspect that most remainers will believe that if Parliament rejects the current deal that a further referendum would be achievable. May is saying that will not happen, but if the deal is rejected then her position as prime minister would be untenable anyway.
I thought I might mention one other potential impact of Brexit that hasn't been much discussed. The impact on Scotland has been widely considered and there's still the possibility that a second independence referendum could be triggered there by them being pulled out of the EU against their will. However, there's a similar constitutional implication for Northern Ireland which hasn't received much attention.
The Good Friday Agreement, which ended the 'troubles' was an ingenious mechanism for allowing some people in NI to consider themselves Irish, while others considered themselves British. The agreement's worked very well in reducing conflicts, but one of its provisions was that the UK government is required (not permitted) to hold a referendum on a reunification of Ireland as soon as it appears there is a majority for that in NI. Demographic changes, with relative increases in Catholic populations, have been gently pushing people towards that for a while, but there still wouldn't have been calls for a referendum in the short term. However, the Brexit process may well mean that significant numbers of the younger generation of Protestants would support a reunited Ireland and could lead to a referendum in the relatively near future. The younger generation have lived in peace times with a friendly Republic of Ireland and don't necessarily have the same emotional attachments to the UK as their parents. The Republic has also changed in other ways in the last 20 years. It is a generally more prosperous country than NI and also (rather surprisingly) has become in recent years more socially liberal than NI over attitudes to things like immigration, gay marriage and abortion. As young adults are generally more socially liberal than their parents this increases the potential attraction of a reunited Ireland.
It's not at all inconceivable that the Brexit process, that was intended to allow the UK to 'take back control' from the EU, will result in the break up of the UK itself.
You can have reporters, CNN, but only if they ask the questions I like. That's what he wants.
An independent commission would be interesting. Didn't someone post here about Canada's system where the Press itself is in charge of these things?
His question should have been: “You have labeled the families coming north seeking asylum as invaders. Can you define what you mean when you use the word invasion in your tweets. How are these Asylum seekers invading the U.S?”
By the journalist choosing the words properly (asylum over immigration), it can force a more constructive response, or a single follow up of “how is seeking asylum illegal?” and bury him that way.
Sanders even said it wasn’t the line of questioning or tough questioning but his rude behaviour (they back tracked on the assault, and even Trump himself said the assault wasn’t that bad) and his refusal to relinquish the microphone after he got the answer to his question: which he did.
And I was the one that posted the Canadian system. In the American system, there was always unwritten rules and behaviours (such as allowing others to ask questions) which I think need to be actually be written down and enforced especially if I believe the courts are going to rule “the press” as organizations.
She specifically accused him of basically assaulting the woman who tried to take the microphone from him, which wasn't only a flat-out lie, but as far as I'm concerned straight-up slander. She then actively promoted a doctored video in which his arm speed was specifically altered to make incidental contact that could generously be described as a brush of two people's arms to look like a karate chop. The White House forfeited any high ground they may have held (a laughable concept for this group of cretins in the first place) when they started promoting Infowars conspiracy theories about what took place.
It wasn't that they thought Acosta "put his hands" on the woman trying to take the microphone and were mistaken. They knew he wasn't, lied about it anyway because they knew a certain segment of the population would believe it no matter what, and then the official spokesman of the Executive Branch of the government pointed people towards an altered video as proof, a video they damn well KNEW was altered, because everyone was watching the actual one dozens of times on social media when the credentials were revoked. No matter what the opinion of Acosta is, the ONLY thing that is of any actual importance in this story is that this White House was engaging in balls to the walls Orwellian propaganda techniques. And it isn't even a close call. Stop repeating the word "assault" when talking about this. That is what the entire purpose of their 48-hour charade on this topic was all about. Throw that narrative into the air for two days, then "backtrack". What a load of absolute bullshit. There was no assault, there wasn't anything more than incidental contact that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to avoid when someone walks up to you unawares and tries to grab something out of your hand. I won't sit here and pretend it was anything different. I watched the video dozens of times.
There is no way Trump was going to answer that question in good faith. Why? Because he's lying, there is no deeper meaning behind the curtain. He wants to lie and control what is truth. He called it an invasion because he wanted to in order to fearmonger his cult of followers and not any other reason based in reality.
I'm fine with reform but allowing the White House to dictate the truth by picking their journalists is their goal and must be prevented or we will end up even further down the fascist road we are currently taking. That was only the third solo press conference of Trumps Presidency. It will be a long time probably before he does another. He fired Sessions about an hour after the press conference so he would not have to answer questions about that at all.
No Republican can be trusted currently. They might regain their senses once Trump is gone but I'm not holding out much hope, I remember the George W. Bush years all too well.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/07/donald-trump-jim-acosta-white-house-news-conference/1920107002/
CNN will bring up their orginal excuse as to why he was banned, where the White House will say it was a poorly worded tweet, and they were unaware that the video used was doctored, and they thought it was just zoomed in. The latter being a lie, but it’ll be up to CNN to prove that last part is a falsehood.
SCOTUS’s official story on the defence is him being rude to staff and him not giving up the microphone when asked. Expect White House Lawyers to trot out journalist, and past officials (from both parties) and press secretaries (once again, both parties) explaining the proper etiquette on these briefings and then showcasing how Acosta has broken these unwritten rules numerous times. (Like the time he was yelling at the back of the room while the president was speaking and another journalist actually turned around to shush him).
It’ll be up to the judge to determine if it is warranted or not, however, the judge will have to weigh what type of behaviour would be inappropriate (throwing a shoe?) when dealing with freedom of the press.
Two. It’s not Trump’s fault that the question was worded poorly. It’s Acosta’s. Once again, Acosta, or any other journalist isn’t there to debate the president. One of the first things you learn in journalism school is “you cover the story, you are not the story.” Acosta continuously breaks this rule. This briefing, the first time since NAFTA iirc that the press had access to the president. If the only story that came out of it was Acosta being an idiot, it is completely unfair to other news organizations who may have been looking for other angles or storylines. It’s great for CNN because it is free publicity. This whole briefing was wasted because of Acosta.
Three. Trump will not be able to pick which journalist will be able to cover him. There has to be good reason to take away a person’s credentials. It’s also why I think it is a good thing that this is going in to the courts. It should be a controlled discussion there with little political sway (once again, depending on the judge) which may promote better legislation. With a Democratic house, this legislation will lean more favourably towards individual journalistic freedoms but the age of civility is over. Both Trump and Acosta have proven that. Time for some common sense ground rules.
Edit: here is a great read from The Atlantic regarding where this may end up if it continues in the court and what Trump can and cannot claim regarding taking away press passes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/cnns-jim-acosta-has-right-his-press-pass/576109/
He will be rewarded for his efforts and be able to further implement voter purges and voter suppression. Bad guys win one there, again.
"Democracy"
Inside the centrist scam behind the “challenge” to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/centrist-scam-challenge-nancy-pelosi/14066/?fbclid=IwAR0sgNweSwlzOXfIEDtKriWCv9J-0M-798jwn7INew_VYmT3UIl_EqMqR6YApparently, 5 Centrists are trying to get someone on the left to run against Nancy Pelosi as Speaker simply to score a coup, but replacing her will damage Democrats in the House
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/us/politics/conservative-lawyers-trump.html?fbclid=IwAR3vCWhJtY_7Vv0AMROyvvkV8GgTDXgMTbpAY9DhjlKgSW3o6gh-siTyBSY
Oh, you don't say! Only NOW they say that?
Brian Kemp’s Win In Georgia Is Tainted by Voter Suppression
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/11/brian-kemps-win-in-georgia-tainted-by-voter-suppression-stacey-abrams/?fbclid=IwAR089bN5jqlZoa1XxRi0fV0dskkXrsuBTh_06TZ73No7x2Wof9JHzzZiQAoAnd now, he's free to rig the vote even further in his favor, and that of his party. This makes me really angry. Tactics like this Should NOT win!
Progressives unseated all 59 Republican judges up for re-election in Houston in the midterms
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/pa5b8z/progressives-unseated-all-59-republican-judges-up-for-re-election-in-houston-in-the-midterms?utm_source=reddit.com&fbclid=IwAR0-TWsGGxtB3xLHkaxZRZ3hGBGm6z4wqilE3eW0xYOHy-qSDeqG_JS_mT0Texas and Houston appear to be getting Bluer, which is all to the good.
Trump privately asking aides if Pence is loyal: report
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/417135-trump-privately-asking-aides-if-pence-is-loyal-report?fbclid=IwAR3CYU56c_7GI9AsAGnDpHkS7WfUrtVpPPedXuPtrA4MHshBPwDXM1NzHCQI found this one the most interesting. I mean, yeah, Trump sort of Pooh-poohed the idea, but he does that ALL THE TIME. Then, something happens, and POOF, that person is gone, or disgraced. I am wondering what Pence might have said and/or done that led Trump to view him as suspect.
Gays for Trump’ leader faces crushing election defeat
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/11/09/gays-for-trump-peter-boykin-election-defeat/?fbclid=IwAR2FErtchpFvPG0AYDFATaXBbO39XL6JGZmRnzo1C-h0iVFOQr5MKF-HXDYHe ran for election as a Republican... and lost, in North Carolina. I honestly don't think that Trump's supporters are going to vote for a homosexual man, even if he does support Trump. And it's not just Trump's supporters, but the Republican party as a whole who probably wouldn't be down with that.
All About the White Man Who Shot and Killed Two Black People at a Kentucky Kroger
https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/kroger-shooting-kentucky-man-shoots-kills-two-people.html?fbclid=IwAR3NC70EH8UMlKPaCs1ZbF8uMHu0KHI2jMMIpUcTrNhfnOsbWskpS-NBB30This guy's pictures are disturbing. He looks Super Super Sane (NOT!) And he does have a mental illness. No idea why he just went out and shot two people, but he attempted to get into a church first. The doors were locked, and he yanked on them for ten minutes before heading to the Kroger where he shot a man and woman in their late 60's.
2 arrested following rash of butter thefts
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/butter-thieves-arrested-1.4908188?cmp=FB_Post_News&fbclid=IwAR1xGfRa8fWpQ39ixNfCLSDLVcT6NKmw5W2R8IgFvllE42MS_E9edD2XCZINot just butter, but waffle cones from an ice-cream truck and $45K worth of lettuce. @deltago , what is going on up there in Canada? Are all these people on weird diets or what? Now, I get that the butter can apparently be sold on the black market... But WAFFLE CONES? And LETTUCE? Is there seriously that large a market for Black Market Lettuce?!
Married Christian Lawmaker Resigns After Same-Sex Office Affair
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/11/married-christian-lawmaker-resigns-sex-office-affair/?fbclid=IwAR3pr_1XWldTTY9evQv1nod-qSqC4WSRQn1lxUyo1zz-98s0jZ8crKHn-5IChristian hypocrisy: Anti-gay, family values lawmaker resigns after being caught engaging in an “inappropriate” sexual affair with a man in his office.
Of course he was. Sadly, this is so common, that the only thing ususual about this one was that it was a same-sex affair rather than a heterosexual one. I actually kinda feel sorry for the guy. hating yourself and in the closet is not a fun way to live.
Trump administration's reported effort to 'barter' a US resident to convince Turkey to ramp down Khashoggi probe stuns foreign-policy veterans
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fethullah-gulen-turkey-khashoggi-experts-stunned-2018-11?fbclid=IwAR2wX7WE6EobHGen2SrVRDzGcNbPeRL02QJpriYHNCyTLehsH1KzuVnPLCcSaved the worst for last. So Trump wants to give Erdogan another religious guy who has been living peacefully in America for 20 years, just so Erdogan would let Saudi Arabia off the hook for killing Kashoggi. The man has no human feeling whatsoever! I don't even have words for how awful this is, and the fact that a man like this was elected President in modern America.
GOP senator admits she’d like to ‘make it a little more difficult’ for liberal students to vote
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/15/1813208/-GOP-senator-admits-she-d-like-to-make-it-a-little-more-difficult-for-liberal-students-to-vote?detail=emaildkreAnd now others want to disenfranchise students because they tend to be Liberal. This is the same lady who said if her campaign donor invited her, she'd take front seat at a hanging. :P
Now Trump is reportedly ragging on Sean Hannity
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/15/1813243/-Now-Trump-is-reportedly-ragging-on-Sean-Hannity?detail=emaildkreTrump cares for nobody but himself, and some of his kids. That's all.
Bad day for Bruce: Republican loses suit to block instant runoff, then loses instant runoff, too
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/15/1813201/-Bad-day-for-Bruce-Republican-loses-suit-to-block-instant-runoff-then-loses-instant-runoff-too?detail=emaildkreThis is about Bruce Poliquin, the Republican running for the House in Maine. More Karma, I feel. Man I am loving me some Karma....
The Ohio professor who's suing for the right to violate his LGBTQ students' rights
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/13/1812624/-The-Ohio-professor-who-s-suing-for-the-right-to-violate-his-LGBTQ-students-rights?detail=emaildkreGiven that Trump has already wanted to wipe out the "Transgender" designation. I worry that this guy might just get the "right" to do this.
Watch Trump presidential campaign adviser treated the way all Trump surrogates should be treated
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/14/1812848/-Watch-Trump-presidential-campaign-adviser-treated-the-way-all-Trump-surrogates-should-be-treated?detail=emaildkreThis guy beat the campaign adviser like a dirty rug. Watch the adviser hum and haw and err and um his way through this interview while making no sense. It's almost amusing.
Trump suggests his followers may get “tougher” & “much more violent" with Antifa protesters
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/14/1812912/-Trump-urges-his-followers-to-attack-Antifa-protesters-in-Daily-Caller-Interview?detail=emaildkreIs it just me, or is he sounding more and more like a mafia boss?
GOP source: Trump skipped World War I ceremony because of ... his hair
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/14/1812930/-The-real-reason-Trump-refused-to-honor-our-fallen-WWI-soldiers-Yup-his-hair?detail=emaildkreThe shallowest of reasons, naturally.
D.C. Nazi who attended Charlottesville rally plotted shooting, had contact with Pittsburgh killer
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/14/1812779/-D-C-Nazi-who-attended-Charlottesville-rally-plotted-shooting-had-contact-with-Pittsburgh-killer?detail=emaildkreThrough Gab, which no longer exists, but this is bad and scary.
Move over, Hillary and Barack! Fox News has found a new super villain
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/14/1812817/-Move-over-Hillary-and-Barack-Fox-News-has-found-a-new-supervillain?detail=emaildkreAnd it's Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, the 26 year old new House member. Because she's a Democratic Socialist, like Bernie Sanders. "OH, THE HORROR!"
Trump is finally revealing himself as the sick, incompetent joke we all knew he was
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/14/1812821/-Trump-is-finally-revealing-himself-as-the-sick-incompetent-joke-we-all-knew-he-was?detail=emaildkreAnd all this is because he's been acting like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because The Republicans took a beating in the election.
Betsy DeVos' Unique Security Detail costs us a lot of money
It could have been a set up and it wouldn’t be the first time this administration has set up a news organization to get what they want. But if it was, once again that’s on Acosta for falling for it.
Majority of journalist do not act this way and it is harder for them to their job if this type of showmanship continues.
Here is a good opinion piece from the NYT that pretty much mimics what you’ve said above about the showmanship:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/17/opinion/sunday/trump-acosta-cnn-lawsuit.html