Trump hasn't held a news conference in a year

So basically after 9 pages the answer is because "Trump doesn't need to do it and the media is out to get him, so why should he do it?"

Lol.

hello Thepaintbucket,

i didn't say i thought the "media is out to get him".

i said that his supporters have that mindset.

Trump supporters see the free press as hopelessly biased against their man. outside of Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram, they probably don't trust anyone in the media.

- IGIT
 
hello Thepaintbucket,

i didn't say i thought the "media is out to get him".

i said that his supporters have that mindset.

Trump supporters see the free press as hopelessly biased against their man. outside of Sean Hannity, they probably don't trust anyone in the media.

- IGIT

Trump has gotten 90%+ negative coverage. How can you explain that?
 
Liberals must love pain and outrage porn, if they want more press conferences from him.

Newsflash Libbies: He's given them. He's had tough questions thrown his way. His answers rustled the fuck out of you. If you think a press conference is going to leave him a sobbing, blubbering mess, and he's going to break down and confess to all the crimes you've convicted him of in your head, you're an idiot. What will happen is, he'll take questions, insult half the people in the room asking them, while confidently giving answers that will in no way satisfy you, and you'll just be left angrier than you were before the press conference, and whining about how he needs to shut the fuck up.
 
Trump has gotten 90%+ negative coverage. How can you explain that?

heya TheComebackKid,

good to see you again.

as far as explaining the preponderance of negative coverage of Mr. Trump?

hmmf.

well, there's two possible explanations, i guess.

1) the press is "out to get" Mr. Trump, and the effort extends across all ideological lines; not only has Mr. Trump been hit hard on the editorial pages of the NYT and Washington Post - which should come as no surprise to anyone - he's been slammed on RedState.com, TownHall.com and the National Review.

in this scenario, Mr. Trump is a victim.

2) the other possibility is that Mr. Trump's coverage are merely a reflection to the words and actions of the man himself.

for example, if the NYT has an article citing absurdity of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto writing Mr. Trump a check for a border wall...well...lol. maybe its because the idea of that actually happening is absurd, and has been all along.

ergo, his coverage is negative because his tweets and various activities as POTUS merit the coverage he's been given - and that sentiment is a bipartisan one in the press.

- IGIT
 
Last edited:
hello Thepaintbucket,

i didn't say i thought the "media is out to get him".

i said that his supporters have that mindset.

Trump supporters see the free press as hopelessly biased against their man. outside of Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram, they probably don't trust anyone in the media.

- IGIT

My post wasn't directed at anybody in particular and I actually agree with you. The response being given in his defense is outright silly.

President Trump should be addressing the public at large by holding new conferences, regardless of if President Trump or his viewers believe the media is out to get him.

I seriously cannot even believe people are defending him to why he shouldn't do it as the freaking President of the United States.
 
heya TheComebackKid,

good to see you again.

as far as explaining the preponderance of negative coverage of Mr. Trump?

hmmf.

well, there's two possible explanations, i guess.

1) the press is "out to get" Mr. Trump, and the effort extends across all ideological lines; not only has Mr. Trump been hit hard on the editorial pages of the NYT and Washington Post - which should come to no surprise to anyone - he's been slammed on RedState.com, TownHall.com and the National Review.

2) the other possibility is that Mr. Trump's coverage are merely a reflection to the words and actions of the man himself.

for example, if the NYT has an article citing absurdity of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto writing Mr. Trump a check for a border wall...well...lol. maybe its because the idea of that actually happening is absurd, and has been all along.

ergo, his coverage is negative because his tweets and various activities as POTUS merit the coverage he's been given - and that sentiment is a bipartisan one in the press.

- IGIT


<{cruzshake}>lol

Well, we can agree to disagree.
 
ahoy Thepaintbucket,

My post wasn't directed at anybody in particular and I actually agree with you. The response being given in his defense is outright silly.

i think its silly also. agreed. i can just empathize with why his supporters might feel otherwise.

President Trump should be addressing the public at large by holding new conferences, regardless of if President Trump or his viewers believe the media is out to get him.

i'd just rather not see or hear about a Trump news conference. i just see it as a total waste of time.

if the POTUS is a complete policy junkie (someone along the lines of Clinton or Obama) i think they can be occasionally interesting, but in this case i don't think that's going to happen.

Mr. Trump would get a few hard questions on DACA or the exodus of officials from his administration...maybe another fastball (high and inside) on the Mueller investigation...and perhaps a hard question or two (from the right) on his deficit ballooning tax plan...

and then?

he'll get angry, petulant. and then he'll start lying, misstating facts and statistics, lol, and he'll do so shamelessly, with great ease and confidence.

why do i need to see this?

- IGIT
 
Breathe zebby, breathe. At this rate you might not make it the next 3 years. Chill, try to ensure Clinton doesn't run again, and before you know it the Trump presidency will seem like a bad dream.
 
<{cruzshake}>lol

Well, we can agree to disagree.

heya TCK,

well, lol.

i cited the two obvious possibilities. i imagine your sentiments would dovetail with option A; that the press is out to get Mr. Trump.

i can see how you'd feel that way, since, as you accurately stated, most of the coverage for our POTUS has been negative.

- IGIT
 
heya TCK,

well, lol.

i cited the two obvious possibilities. i imagine your sentiments would dovetail with option A; that the press is out to get Mr. Trump.

i can see how you'd feel that way, since, as you accurately stated, most of the coverage for our POTUS has been negative.

- IGIT

I appreciate your cordiality but I cannot pretend to respect your opinion that 90%+ negative coverage is justifiable in anyway. It's an incredulous opinion to hold.
 
I appreciate your cordiality but I cannot pretend to respect your opinion that 90%+ negative coverage is justifiable in anyway. It's an incredulous opinion to hold.

hi TheComebackKid,

i only cited that as the other possibility, man.

i mean, lol...if 90% of MMA writers feel BJ Penn wasted his talent...maybe that's because he wasted his talent? like, maybe 90% feel this way because that's how it looks to them and they're not all "out to get" BJ Penn.

its a possibility, right?

- IGIT
 

True, I just don't see Obama in the same outright defiant, and inflammatory light to Conservatives, as I see Trump to Liberals. He was just a typical President, that naturally pissed off the other side. Conservatives didn't go begging to put their finger in the light socket everyday, like Liberals do with Trump, foolishly thinking they aren't going to get zapped this time.
 
hi TheComebackKid,

i only cited that as the other possibility, man.

i mean, lol...if 90% of MMA writers feel BJ Penn wasted his talent...maybe that's because he wasted his talent? like, maybe 90% feel this way because that's how it looks to them and they're not all "out to get" BJ Penn.

its a possibility, right?

- IGIT

Sure but you are switching things up. 90% negative coverage on one particular issue or attribute, like Penn's talent, would be more believable. But if 90% of MMA writers had negative, often scathing, articles about everything about Penn from his talent, to his marriage, to his camp, his character, his friends, his hand size, how many scoops of ice cream he eats...whle also not giving him any credit for his accomplishments or positive attributes well then yeah..I would start to question the motives of these writers.
 
True, I just don't see Obama in the same outright defiant, and inflammatory light to Conservatives, as I see Trump to Liberals. He was just a typical President, that naturally pissed off the other side. Conservatives didn't go begging to put their finger in the light socket everyday, like Liberals do with Trump, foolishly thinking they aren't going to get zapped this time.

hi again HereticBD,

idk, man.

Mr. Trump is a very unusual individual - much of the outrage he's getting is coming from his right. its not just the usual line of critics from the New York Times or the Washington Post.

if i were a fiscal conservative (like the guys over at the National Review), i'd find the Trump administration a very hard pill to swallow. Trump's been hit hard on his spending from the NR writers.

if i were an evangelical conservative, i'd have to repeat this mantra every day, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

if i were a "law and order" conservative (like the guys and girls over at RedState.com), i'd be kind of red faced over Mr. Trump - Susan Wright is killing Trump on the Mueller investigation every day, lol.

if i were an Eisenhower conservative (not many of them left anymore, they're dying off) i'd find Mr. Trump incomprehensible. his tweets would look like hieroglyphics.

if i were a Rockefeller Republican (this species of Republican is extinct on Capital Hill - but i'd describe many, if not most, Republican voters as culturally liberal and fiscally conservative), Trump's budget would seem bizarre to me.

Mr. Trump is, in any ways, an outlier in his own party - he might get roughed up from the right if he held a press conference.

- IGIT
 
Last edited:
trump doesnt need to speak to fake news. he speaks direct to the country unfiltered through twitter.
 
Because the mainstream media views President Trump as the enemy.

If that's the world we live in, then President Trump has absolutely no reason to even give them the time of day.
 
hi again TCK,

But if 90% of MMA writers had negative, often scathing, articles about everything about Penn from his talent, to his marriage, to his camp, his character, his friends, his hand size, how many scoops of ice cream he eats

i agree with you here, 100%.

this sort of stuff is juvenile and inane.

the thing is, Mr. Obama had to deal with the same amount of ridiculous "coverage" over the same meaningless garbage.

its infantile and i am annoyed about it as you are, regardless of party.

...whle also not giving him any credit for his accomplishments or positive attributes well then yeah..I would start to question the motives of these writers.

this is where you and i probably differ.

many conservatives actually liked Mr. Obama on foreign policy. i mean, lol, until she announced her 2nd run for the presidency, Sec of State Clinton was the most popular person in his adminstration.

more importantly, many liberals and garden variety democrats liked Mr. Obama and his policies.

there are a legion of actual conservatives out there who find Mr. Trump a very, very strange man. the Freedom Caucus (formerly the Tea Party) must view Trump as a form of extraterrestrial life.

the reason for much of the criticism directed at Trump from the media (in a very bipartisan fashion) is because of his "accomplishments", not in spite of them.

EDIT - i don't want to go here, because its tawdry, but i gotta say that stuff like, "grab'm by the pussy" tends to elicit bipartisan discomfort and horror. just sayin'.

- IGIT
 
hi again HereticBD,

idk, man.

Mr. Trump is a very unusual individual - much of the outrage he's getting is coming from his right. its not just the usual line of critics from the New York Times or the Washington Post.

if i were a fiscal conservative (like the guys over at the National Review), i'd find the Trump administration a very hard pill to swallow. Trump's been hit hard on his spending from the NR writers.

if i were an evangelical conservative, i'd have to repeat this mantra every day, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

if i were a "law and order" conservative (like the guys and girls over at RedState.com), i'd be kind of red faced over Mr. Trump - Susan Wright is killing Trump on the Mueller investigation every day, lol.

if i were an Eisenhower conservative (not many of them left anymore, they're dying off) i'd find Mr. Trump incomprehensible. his tweets would look like hieroglyphics.

if i were a Rockefeller Republican (this species of Republican is extinct on Capital Hill - but i'd describe many, if not most, Republican voters as culturally liberal and fiscally conservative), Trump's budget would seem bizarre to me.

Mr. Trump is, in any ways, an outlier in his own party - he might get roughed up from the right if he held a press conference.

- IGIT
While this is a very good post, and an excellent analysis, it's missing one key component.

The ribbon that ties these forces together:

The NRA.

The right to keep and bear arms has been a unifying idea for the American right for some time.

I view this in a positive light. A major political party, in the modern Western world is unified in it's respect for the rights of the individual.
 
Back
Top