As a reminder, Trump hasn’t held a White House press conference in over a year

[Doc1]

They were wrong.

A 5-4 opinion.... lol.

Too bad for you and your ilk, your opinion's don't matter.

LOL, and of course you believe YOURS do? What a maroon
You long to hear Trump's voice do ya?

Moron, why would I think my opinion is any more, or any less, valuable than his? Do you do anything other than troll these fora?

Priceless projection little man. You are ( as you show virtually EVERY day) a legend in your own mind. You also DO nothing but troll kid. You didn't answer, do you need to hear more of Trump's voice?

No, I understand why Trump doesn't want to field questions from the press.

WELL, you ARE capable of civility.

 

[toobfreak]

Trump hasn’t held a White House press conference in over a year
is it because he’s a pussy who can’t handle hardball questions unlike the softies he gets from Fox News?

Funny as I hadn't even missed them. Is that because on the campaign trail Trump took interview after interview, question after question from anyone and everyone day after day no matter who they were while Hillary hid from the press for months carefully picking and choosing her interviews and questions only from friendly supporters?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So was that treating those who oppose gay marriage (not a small minority by a long shot) with respect or not?

You think that was some kind of dig at you? Get over yourself. That was to celebrate a group of people that finally won their right to pursue happiness.

Next you’re probably going to ask if Obama saying that a black person’s life matters is disrespectful to you rubes.

My issue with obergfell wan't the gay marriage part but the forcing of the States that don't want it to issue them by force.

However unlike you I understand some people oppose gay marriage on the merits. Now tell me how lighting up the white house in the rainbow flag, supposedly ALL the people's house" is respecting those people?

Lighting up the White House was acknowledging the rule of law of the Constitution was upheld; a victory for America. But I understand why you fret. I am certain there were folks who fretted when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks couldn't be discriminated against and there were folks who fretted when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that women couldn't be discriminated against.

Being black is not a behavior. Being a woman is not a behavior. Being gay is a behavior and nothing more. It's like bestiality, necrophilia or pedophilia. Behaviors based on sex only.

Marriage has been determined by our government to be a fundamental right. Neither bestiality nor necrophilia nor pedophilia has been. A prevailing reason it's a fundamental right is to secure the liberty and freedom to make a lifelong commit in matrimony to be bound legally to the person you love. And as a fundamental right, which is firmly established in the fabric of this nation, people have the right to marry the person they love and the government cannot distinguish a person's behavior based on their gender to deny someone of their fundamental right to be legally bound to the person of their choice.

That is why Obergefell came about.

There is no reason, after recognizing that homosexuality is a fundamental right, not to recognize that bestiality, necrophilia and even pedophilia are also fundamental human rights. Therefore it should not be surprising that pedophiles are demanding their rights too.

Shocking Times: Movement for Pedophile “Rights” Marches On

Sex offenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt, Theresa May told

 

[Oldstyle]

Who the fuck needs a press conference?

You used to....

Hillary hasn't even had a press conference in ages

The FBI is the law enforcement arm of the Democrat Party, she refused to to hold a press conference, and likely murdered dissidents, so fear is a natural response

Obama ran from a press conference and had Clinton speak for him because he's a pussy whipped moron, what school taught him that, Harvard? Columbia? His Indonesia Madrassah?

Awesome precedents she's setting: selling access, murdering dissidents and refusing to speak to the press

Biden hasn't even had a press conference in 5 months!

Alt Right is another in a long line of failed attempts to deflect from the fact that Hillary sold her SecState position for a few hundred million to foreign nationals, lied to the FBI, lied to Congress, refuses to hold a legitimate Press Conference, Bleach-Bitted the emails related to her using the Benghazi Consulate to arm Islamists and got 4 Americans killed, was likely behind the murder of Seth Rich, who leaked DNC emails to Assange, attempted to murder Assange himself and also has serious health problems

And they do have White House Press conferences...Donald Trump simply doesn't do them. He has a Press Secretary who does that for him.

All presidents have a press secretary to talk to the press. Trump is the only pussy among the presidents who's too scared to do that himself on occasion.

I hate to break this to you, Faun but I see less "fear" of the press in THIS President than in any President we may have ever had! Quite frankly, Trump seems to relish the fight he's having with the main stream media. He won't give into them and he knows that the thing that drives them the craziest is simply being ignored. I find it rather amusing to listen to the sputters of indignation coming from the talking heads when Trump refuses to play their game.

 

[Faun]

Ask yourself that -- you're the only one bitching about it. I'm gloating over the victory.

And you're still bitching. <smh>

No, I would not love that. You're out of your mind.

That you have to "gloat' over it shows what a fucking pathetic loser you are.

Letting the government fight your fights, fucking basement dwelling progressive coward.

LOLOL

Your desperation is noted and laughed at.

The Constitution is worth fighting for and our system, of which you're also a part, established the judiciary as the body to uphold ALL cases which fall under it's jurisdiction.

The judiciary was supposed to interpret law, not make it up.

Making SSM the law of the land is making law up, not interpreting it.

You don't respect the constitution, you ignore it when you see fit, and hide behind it when convenient.

Interpreting the law is what they did in Obergefell. How many times do you want to rehash your bitterness over that decision? You lose every single time. Equality for all under the law prevailed. Just as the 14th Amendment demands.

They interpreted it wrongly.

SSM is a new concept made up in the past 30 years or so. if people want it, go via changing the State laws to allow it, and at best make the feds force States to recognize all marriage licenses just like they have to now under full faith and credit.

Says you.

But you offer no evidence to support your position. Stating marriage per se isn't in the Constitution is irrelevant since the guiding phrase of Obergefell, is ... equal protection under the law.

You offer no evidence as to why a person should be denied the legal matrimony to the person they love, in violation of the equal protection clause, for no reason other than the gender of the person they choose to marry.

 

[Faun]

You think that was some kind of dig at you? Get over yourself. That was to celebrate a group of people that finally won their right to pursue happiness.

Next you’re probably going to ask if Obama saying that a black person’s life matters is disrespectful to you rubes.

My issue with obergfell wan't the gay marriage part but the forcing of the States that don't want it to issue them by force.

However unlike you I understand some people oppose gay marriage on the merits. Now tell me how lighting up the white house in the rainbow flag, supposedly ALL the people's house" is respecting those people?

Lighting up the White House was acknowledging the rule of law of the Constitution was upheld; a victory for America. But I understand why you fret. I am certain there were folks who fretted when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks couldn't be discriminated against and there were folks who fretted when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that women couldn't be discriminated against.

Being black is not a behavior. Being a woman is not a behavior. Being gay is a behavior and nothing more. It's like bestiality, necrophilia or pedophilia. Behaviors based on sex only.

Marriage has been determined by our government to be a fundamental right. Neither bestiality nor necrophilia nor pedophilia has been. A prevailing reason it's a fundamental right is to secure the liberty and freedom to make a lifelong commit in matrimony to be bound legally to the person you love. And as a fundamental right, which is firmly established in the fabric of this nation, people have the right to marry the person they love and the government cannot distinguish a person's behavior based on their gender to deny someone of their fundamental right to be legally bound to the person of their choice.

That is why Obergefell came about.

There is no reason, after recognizing that homosexuality is a fundamental right, not to recognize that bestiality, necrophilia and even pedophilia are also fundamental human rights. Therefore it should not be surprising that pedophiles are demanding their rights too.

Shocking Times: Movement for Pedophile “Rights” Marches On

Sex offenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt, Theresa May told

No court ruled that homosexuality is a fundamental right. You're still battling your delusions.

 

[Slade3200]

Treat people with respect and they should respect you back... treat them like shit and well you get the point. It isn’t a hard concept

LOL. The whole progressive movement is about treating opponents like shit until the bend the knee or shut up and go away.

That train left the station decades ago.

We aren’t talking about the progressive movement, we are talking about how the press treated Obama vs how they treated Trump. Obama treated them with repspect most of the the time while Trump has treated them like shot for the majority of the time. His whole campaign was pretty much shit talking politicians and our media.

Lol, you mean the press that would suck Obama's dick at a drop of the hat?

And guess what? the media and the politicians DESERVE IT.

But some Coastal moron like you won't get that.

Are you really not understanding the concept? Friendly prez friendly press... hostile prez hostile press. Trump did it to himself regardless of whether you think the press deserved it or not.

I thought the press was supposed to be the watchdog of our government, not some friend of it.

And it's not the person, it's the politics. most of the MSM are lefty twats, so it makes sense how they swallow for another lefty twat.

They should be watchdogs and ask hard questions and hold those in power accountable. But the demeanor is what I’m talking about and it is all in the gutter right now.

 

[martybegan]

That you have to "gloat' over it shows what a fucking pathetic loser you are.

Letting the government fight your fights, fucking basement dwelling progressive coward.

LOLOL

Your desperation is noted and laughed at.

The Constitution is worth fighting for and our system, of which you're also a part, established the judiciary as the body to uphold ALL cases which fall under it's jurisdiction.

The judiciary was supposed to interpret law, not make it up.

Making SSM the law of the land is making law up, not interpreting it.

You don't respect the constitution, you ignore it when you see fit, and hide behind it when convenient.

Interpreting the law is what they did in Obergefell. How many times do you want to rehash your bitterness over that decision? You lose every single time. Equality for all under the law prevailed. Just as the 14th Amendment demands.

They interpreted it wrongly.

SSM is a new concept made up in the past 30 years or so. if people want it, go via changing the State laws to allow it, and at best make the feds force States to recognize all marriage licenses just like they have to now under full faith and credit.

Says you.

But you offer no evidence to support your position. Stating marriage per se isn't in the Constitution is irrelevant since the guiding phrase of Obergefell, is ... equal protection under the law.

You offer no evidence as to why a person should be denied the legal matrimony to the person they love, in violation of the equal protection clause, for no reason other than the gender of the person they choose to marry.

And all you offer is "fuh fuh fuh, the 5 of 9 unelected lawyers said so, fuh fuh fuh"

You offer no reason why a State can be forced to issue a SSM beyond "equal protection and an appeal to authority"

Choosing the gender of someone you wanted to marry was never even considered an option until recently. Marrying someone of another race has been considered an option fo millenia.

The concept is creating new law vs. interpreting established law with precedent.

Obergfell decided to create new law "just because". It's the jiggery pokery referenced by Scalia in his dissent.

 

[martybegan]

LOL. The whole progressive movement is about treating opponents like shit until the bend the knee or shut up and go away.

That train left the station decades ago.

We aren’t talking about the progressive movement, we are talking about how the press treated Obama vs how they treated Trump. Obama treated them with repspect most of the the time while Trump has treated them like shot for the majority of the time. His whole campaign was pretty much shit talking politicians and our media.

Lol, you mean the press that would suck Obama's dick at a drop of the hat?

And guess what? the media and the politicians DESERVE IT.

But some Coastal moron like you won't get that.

Are you really not understanding the concept? Friendly prez friendly press... hostile prez hostile press. Trump did it to himself regardless of whether you think the press deserved it or not.

I thought the press was supposed to be the watchdog of our government, not some friend of it.

And it's not the person, it's the politics. most of the MSM are lefty twats, so it makes sense how they swallow for another lefty twat.

They should be watchdogs and ask hard questions and hold those in power accountable. But the demeanor is what I’m talking about and it is all in the gutter right now.

Arguing about the demeanor is like discussing how to fix a leaky faucet faucet on a sinking Titanic.

It hides the real issue, which is that most of the press, the supposed watchdog of our democracy has decided to be a snarling rottweiler when facing non-progressives and a mewling lapdog when facing progressive ones.

All the while lying about how impartial they are.

 

[edward37]

Who cares?

Hey doc Are you one of those high quality guys trump talks about ? LOL

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Your desperation is noted and laughed at.

The Constitution is worth fighting for and our system, of which you're also a part, established the judiciary as the body to uphold ALL cases which fall under it's jurisdiction.

The judiciary was supposed to interpret law, not make it up.

Making SSM the law of the land is making law up, not interpreting it.

You don't respect the constitution, you ignore it when you see fit, and hide behind it when convenient.

Interpreting the law is what they did in Obergefell. How many times do you want to rehash your bitterness over that decision? You lose every single time. Equality for all under the law prevailed. Just as the 14th Amendment demands.

They interpreted it wrongly.

SSM is a new concept made up in the past 30 years or so. if people want it, go via changing the State laws to allow it, and at best make the feds force States to recognize all marriage licenses just like they have to now under full faith and credit.

Says you.

But you offer no evidence to support your position. Stating marriage per se isn't in the Constitution is irrelevant since the guiding phrase of Obergefell, is ... equal protection under the law.

You offer no evidence as to why a person should be denied the legal matrimony to the person they love, in violation of the equal protection clause, for no reason other than the gender of the person they choose to marry.

And all you offer is "fuh fuh fuh, the 5 of 9 unelected lawyers said so, fuh fuh fuh"

You offer no reason why a State can be forced to issue a SSM beyond "equal protection and an appeal to authority"

Choosing the gender of someone you wanted to marry was never even considered an option until recently. Marrying someone of another race has been considered an option fo millenia.

The concept is creating new law vs. interpreting established law with precedent.

Obergfell decided to create new law "just because". It's the jiggery pokery referenced by Scalia in his dissent.

You poor thing, now you're flat out lying. Of course I laid out a cohesive argument for why I believe Obergefell was correct.The Constitution demands everyone in the U.S., regardless of the laws passed in each individual state, be treated equally under the law.

Marriage is a fundamental right. No state can give a marriage license to one person but deny it to another based on nothing other than the gender of the person they wish to marry. Just like no state can deny a marriage license to someone based on the color of the skin of the person they with to marry ... or the religion of the person they wish to marry.

And that did not create a new law. It nullified an unconstitutional part of an existing law. It's no one else's fault that you remain bitter over Obergefell because you're too ignorant to comprehend any of this.

 

[martybegan]

The judiciary was supposed to interpret law, not make it up.

Making SSM the law of the land is making law up, not interpreting it.

You don't respect the constitution, you ignore it when you see fit, and hide behind it when convenient.

Interpreting the law is what they did in Obergefell. How many times do you want to rehash your bitterness over that decision? You lose every single time. Equality for all under the law prevailed. Just as the 14th Amendment demands.

They interpreted it wrongly.

SSM is a new concept made up in the past 30 years or so. if people want it, go via changing the State laws to allow it, and at best make the feds force States to recognize all marriage licenses just like they have to now under full faith and credit.

Says you.

But you offer no evidence to support your position. Stating marriage per se isn't in the Constitution is irrelevant since the guiding phrase of Obergefell, is ... equal protection under the law.

You offer no evidence as to why a person should be denied the legal matrimony to the person they love, in violation of the equal protection clause, for no reason other than the gender of the person they choose to marry.

And all you offer is "fuh fuh fuh, the 5 of 9 unelected lawyers said so, fuh fuh fuh"

You offer no reason why a State can be forced to issue a SSM beyond "equal protection and an appeal to authority"

Choosing the gender of someone you wanted to marry was never even considered an option until recently. Marrying someone of another race has been considered an option fo millenia.

The concept is creating new law vs. interpreting established law with precedent.

Obergfell decided to create new law "just because". It's the jiggery pokery referenced by Scalia in his dissent.

You poor thing, now you're flat out lying. Of course I laid out a cohesive argument for why I believe Obergefell was correct.The Constitution demands everyone in the U.S., regardless of the laws passed in each individual state, be treated equally under the law.

Marriage is a fundamental right. No state can give a marriage license to one person but deny it to another based on nothing other than the gender of the person they wish to marry. Just like no state can deny a marriage license to someone based on the color of the skin of the person they with to marry ... or the religion of the person they wish to marry.

And that did not create a new law. It nullified an unconstitutional part of an existing law. It's no one else's fault that you remain bitter over Obergefell because you're too ignorant to comprehend any of this.

No, you just keep repeating "equal" without explaining WHY it's equal, which it isn't. It's an entirely new concept. Again, as NY did if a State wants to change its marriage contract via legislative action, go ahead. by forcing an idea that isn't even 3 decades old under the guise of equal is just plain crazy.

 

[Faun]

Interpreting the law is what they did in Obergefell. How many times do you want to rehash your bitterness over that decision? You lose every single time. Equality for all under the law prevailed. Just as the 14th Amendment demands.

They interpreted it wrongly.

SSM is a new concept made up in the past 30 years or so. if people want it, go via changing the State laws to allow it, and at best make the feds force States to recognize all marriage licenses just like they have to now under full faith and credit.

Says you.

But you offer no evidence to support your position. Stating marriage per se isn't in the Constitution is irrelevant since the guiding phrase of Obergefell, is ... equal protection under the law.

You offer no evidence as to why a person should be denied the legal matrimony to the person they love, in violation of the equal protection clause, for no reason other than the gender of the person they choose to marry.

And all you offer is "fuh fuh fuh, the 5 of 9 unelected lawyers said so, fuh fuh fuh"

You offer no reason why a State can be forced to issue a SSM beyond "equal protection and an appeal to authority"

Choosing the gender of someone you wanted to marry was never even considered an option until recently. Marrying someone of another race has been considered an option fo millenia.

The concept is creating new law vs. interpreting established law with precedent.

Obergfell decided to create new law "just because". It's the jiggery pokery referenced by Scalia in his dissent.

You poor thing, now you're flat out lying. Of course I laid out a cohesive argument for why I believe Obergefell was correct.The Constitution demands everyone in the U.S., regardless of the laws passed in each individual state, be treated equally under the law.

Marriage is a fundamental right. No state can give a marriage license to one person but deny it to another based on nothing other than the gender of the person they wish to marry. Just like no state can deny a marriage license to someone based on the color of the skin of the person they with to marry ... or the religion of the person they wish to marry.

And that did not create a new law. It nullified an unconstitutional part of an existing law. It's no one else's fault that you remain bitter over Obergefell because you're too ignorant to comprehend any of this.

No, you just keep repeating "equal" without explaining WHY it's equal, which it isn't. It's an entirely new concept. Again, as NY did if a State wants to change its marriage contract via legislative action, go ahead. by forcing an idea that isn't even 3 decades old under the guise of equal is just plain crazy.

I have repeatedly said why it's equal. No state can deny something to someone based on nothing but gender, race, creed, religion, to one person but grant it to another.

No state can tell one person they can legally marry the person they wish to be legally married to while deny someone else that very same right due to nothing but the gender of the person they wish to marry.

I won't explain that again. If you still can't comprehend that, it's on you.

 

[martybegan]

They interpreted it wrongly.

SSM is a new concept made up in the past 30 years or so. if people want it, go via changing the State laws to allow it, and at best make the feds force States to recognize all marriage licenses just like they have to now under full faith and credit.

Says you.

But you offer no evidence to support your position. Stating marriage per se isn't in the Constitution is irrelevant since the guiding phrase of Obergefell, is ... equal protection under the law.

You offer no evidence as to why a person should be denied the legal matrimony to the person they love, in violation of the equal protection clause, for no reason other than the gender of the person they choose to marry.

And all you offer is "fuh fuh fuh, the 5 of 9 unelected lawyers said so, fuh fuh fuh"

You offer no reason why a State can be forced to issue a SSM beyond "equal protection and an appeal to authority"

Choosing the gender of someone you wanted to marry was never even considered an option until recently. Marrying someone of another race has been considered an option fo millenia.

The concept is creating new law vs. interpreting established law with precedent.

Obergfell decided to create new law "just because". It's the jiggery pokery referenced by Scalia in his dissent.

You poor thing, now you're flat out lying. Of course I laid out a cohesive argument for why I believe Obergefell was correct.The Constitution demands everyone in the U.S., regardless of the laws passed in each individual state, be treated equally under the law.

Marriage is a fundamental right. No state can give a marriage license to one person but deny it to another based on nothing other than the gender of the person they wish to marry. Just like no state can deny a marriage license to someone based on the color of the skin of the person they with to marry ... or the religion of the person they wish to marry.

And that did not create a new law. It nullified an unconstitutional part of an existing law. It's no one else's fault that you remain bitter over Obergefell because you're too ignorant to comprehend any of this.

No, you just keep repeating "equal" without explaining WHY it's equal, which it isn't. It's an entirely new concept. Again, as NY did if a State wants to change its marriage contract via legislative action, go ahead. by forcing an idea that isn't even 3 decades old under the guise of equal is just plain crazy.

I have repeatedly said why it's equal. No state can deny something to someone based on nothing but gender, race, creed, religion, to one person but grant it to another.

No state can tell one person they can legally marry the person they wish to be legally married to while deny someone else that very same right due to nothing but the gender of the person they wish to marry.

I won't explain that again. If you still can't comprehend that, it's on you.

Only because Obergfell, which means you are applying circular logic.

Again, all your "logic" is based on a horrible SC decision, which is what you use as proof that the SC decision is constitutional....

 

[Faun]

Says you.

But you offer no evidence to support your position. Stating marriage per se isn't in the Constitution is irrelevant since the guiding phrase of Obergefell, is ... equal protection under the law.

You offer no evidence as to why a person should be denied the legal matrimony to the person they love, in violation of the equal protection clause, for no reason other than the gender of the person they choose to marry.

And all you offer is "fuh fuh fuh, the 5 of 9 unelected lawyers said so, fuh fuh fuh"

You offer no reason why a State can be forced to issue a SSM beyond "equal protection and an appeal to authority"

Choosing the gender of someone you wanted to marry was never even considered an option until recently. Marrying someone of another race has been considered an option fo millenia.

The concept is creating new law vs. interpreting established law with precedent.

Obergfell decided to create new law "just because". It's the jiggery pokery referenced by Scalia in his dissent.

You poor thing, now you're flat out lying. Of course I laid out a cohesive argument for why I believe Obergefell was correct.The Constitution demands everyone in the U.S., regardless of the laws passed in each individual state, be treated equally under the law.

Marriage is a fundamental right. No state can give a marriage license to one person but deny it to another based on nothing other than the gender of the person they wish to marry. Just like no state can deny a marriage license to someone based on the color of the skin of the person they with to marry ... or the religion of the person they wish to marry.

And that did not create a new law. It nullified an unconstitutional part of an existing law. It's no one else's fault that you remain bitter over Obergefell because you're too ignorant to comprehend any of this.

No, you just keep repeating "equal" without explaining WHY it's equal, which it isn't. It's an entirely new concept. Again, as NY did if a State wants to change its marriage contract via legislative action, go ahead. by forcing an idea that isn't even 3 decades old under the guise of equal is just plain crazy.

I have repeatedly said why it's equal. No state can deny something to someone based on nothing but gender, race, creed, religion, to one person but grant it to another.

No state can tell one person they can legally marry the person they wish to be legally married to while deny someone else that very same right due to nothing but the gender of the person they wish to marry.

I won't explain that again. If you still can't comprehend that, it's on you.

Only because Obergfell, which means you are applying circular logic.

Again, all your "logic" is based on a horrible SC decision, which is what you use as proof that the SC decision is constitutional....

Nope, it's not circular logic. I've been arguing in favor of protecting equal protection in marriage for years. Obergefell merely confirmed what I have been saying and cemented the belief in stone with their ruling.

 

[CowboyTed]

Why would Trump want to engage directly with hostile, proven fake news liberal media outlets?

Am I missing anything from Trump not standing up in front of these clowns who have done their best to help the 'Secret Society' take him down? No....

Where is your proof... Every fact checking site has setting records for saying untrue statements...

Well that the problem with reality, it has a liberal bias

 

[FJO]

is it because he’s a pussy who can’t handle hardball questions unlike the softies he gets from Fox News? Does he constantly need Fox News to coddle his ego? The white press conference is standard practice by Presidents that goes back generations.

Even If you want to pretend the press is unfair to him which of course is bullshit, why doesn’t he face them down like a real president would and defend himself? Be a man for once. Even better, he removes his fake hair and orange tan to show he has some balls.

Of course, maybe the true reason he doesn’t do them is because he knows he made a complete ass of himself last time.

Are you Trump supporters really going to pretend White House press conferences don’t matter? If Obama dodged them you would never shut the fuck about it.

In Trump era, the death of the White House press conference

Obama didn't have to worry because most of the press was there ready with kneepads to suck his dick.

Treat people with respect and they should respect you back... treat them like shit and well you get the point. It isn’t a hard concept

LOL. The whole progressive movement is about treating opponents like shit until the bend the knee or shut up and go away.

That train left the station decades ago.

We aren’t talking about the progressive movement, we are talking about how the press treated Obama vs how they treated Trump. Obama treated them with repspect most of the the time while Trump has treated them like shot for the majority of the time. His whole campaign was pretty much shit talking politicians and our media.

If the press had treated Donald Trump, the presidential contender, as they should have treated him, it would all be different now.

But from the very moment Donald Trump announced, he got nothing but scorn, ridicule and resentment from the so-called main stream media.

Respect was nowhere on the main stream media horizon.

They laughed at the idea that he can beat 16 other Republican contenders. Hell, these assholes ridiculed him for contending as a Republican.

Respect was nowhere to be found in the main stream media.

Then, when he demolished all the Republican wusses they ridiculed the idea that he could beat beat the woman who was "in line" supported by the Hungarian Jew whose name means in line.

Where was the respect of the main stream media then?

And then, to the very last minute on election night the contempt and pre-election disrespect peaked when it was foolishly declared by the main stream media that he has no path to the presidency.

And when he won 30 states the REAL disrespect really began.

And you wonder why President Trump wants to have as little to do with the main stream as media as possible.

Like you say, you get the respect you deserve and you get what you give.

 

[Slade3200]

We aren’t talking about the progressive movement, we are talking about how the press treated Obama vs how they treated Trump. Obama treated them with repspect most of the the time while Trump has treated them like shot for the majority of the time. His whole campaign was pretty much shit talking politicians and our media.

Lol, you mean the press that would suck Obama's dick at a drop of the hat?

And guess what? the media and the politicians DESERVE IT.

But some Coastal moron like you won't get that.

Are you really not understanding the concept? Friendly prez friendly press... hostile prez hostile press. Trump did it to himself regardless of whether you think the press deserved it or not.

I thought the press was supposed to be the watchdog of our government, not some friend of it.

And it's not the person, it's the politics. most of the MSM are lefty twats, so it makes sense how they swallow for another lefty twat.

They should be watchdogs and ask hard questions and hold those in power accountable. But the demeanor is what I’m talking about and it is all in the gutter right now.

Arguing about the demeanor is like discussing how to fix a leaky faucet faucet on a sinking Titanic.

It hides the real issue, which is that most of the press, the supposed watchdog of our democracy has decided to be a snarling rottweiler when facing non-progressives and a mewling lapdog when facing progressive ones.

All the while lying about how impartial they are.

You are stepping all over yourself if you are trying to make a case that the press needs to be out watchdogs. If that’s your position then the harsh and critical treatment of trump should be welcomed and Trumps dishonest attacks on the press when he calls critical news “fake” should be criticized. I dont see you doing that

 

[J.E.D]

Three words: he’s a pussy

Actually, that's five.

Not if you only count the words AFTER the colon. Dipshit.

Three words: you’re not smart

 

[OldLady]

is it because he’s a pussy who can’t handle hardball questions unlike the softies he gets from Fox News? Does he constantly need Fox News to coddle his ego? The white press conference is standard practice by Presidents that goes back generations.

Even If you want to pretend the press is unfair to him which of course is bullshit, why doesn’t he face them down like a real president would and defend himself? Be a man for once. Even better, he removes his fake hair and orange tan to show he has some balls.

Of course, maybe the true reason he doesn’t do them is because he knows he made a complete ass of himself last time.

Are you Trump supporters really going to pretend White House press conferences don’t matter? If Obama dodged them you would never shut the fuck about it.

In Trump era, the death of the White House press conference

Considering all the shit we have to listen to from him, I'm not missing more, tbh.