0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:05 pm to MyMardiGrasHat
quote:
Why is everyone so up in arms about kicking media outlets out of the White House?
Other than the outlets and their dwindling audiences, I don't think many people are up in arms about this.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:08 pm to IvoryBillMatt
In my opinion, this has been the most Beta move by Trump. It’s like he just admitted, I can’t beat them so I’m gonna prevent them from being here
No one fricking watches CNN any way.
No one fricking watches CNN any way.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:19 pm to udtiger
quote:
I invite someone into my home and then decide they have to leave because I don't want them there, I don't have to give them "due process." They are their at my invitation which is subject to recall at my whim. To state otherwise is to say they have a vested right to be in my house once I let them in.
Sad that you would willingly claim that the WH is Trump's house.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:25 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Acting press secretary should hand out 3”x5” index cards and ask them to write their name, affiliation, and question on the card. Collect them, and then select only the ones the White House wants to address.
I would love to see the reaction to what Sloppy Joe did for four years.
I would love to see the reaction to what Sloppy Joe did for four years.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:52 pm to KCT
quote:
Between the courts, the Democrats, and the Thune/McConnell sellouts it's a wonder President Trump can do anything at all.
Not doing anything at all would be a significant upgrade. This second term has been an unmitigated disaster.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:56 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Not doing anything at all would be a significant upgrade. This second term has been an unmitigated disaster.
No it hasn't
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:57 pm to MyMardiGrasHat
quote:
Why is everyone so up in arms about kicking media outlets out of the White House?
Because it’s a stupid political stunt that will cost the RNC even more votes in the midterms.
It also offends the basic principles behind the First Amendment.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:04 pm to udtiger
quote:
If I invite someone into my home and then decide they have to leave because I don't want them there, I don't have to give them "due process." They are their at my invitation which is subject to recall at my whim. To state otherwise is to say they have a vested right to be in my house once I let them in.
Just wow. Such a dumb analogy.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:05 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
Sad that you would willingly claim that the WH is Trump's house
It is his residence.
See the leased apartment example.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:07 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
It also offends the basic principles behind the First Amendment.
The first amendment does not give any particular person access to a microphone in a particular location.
It doesn't under democrat administrations anyway.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:08 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:and?
At today's hearing, the Trump-appointed judge said that it looked like the ban didn't allow the media companies to contest Trump's decision. Seems like just a speed bump that can be easily cured.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:17 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
and?
The judge hasn't ruled yet, but his comments during the hearing were an indication of the way he would rule: "Trump can ban them, but they must be given the opportunity to dispute the ban before getting the boot."
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:28 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:
The first amendment does not give any particular person access to a microphone in a particular location.
It doesn't under democrat administrations anyway.
I never said it did.
But the principle behind the First Amendment is the utmost protection of political speech. The President crying and banning certain media outlets because they’re mean to him offends that principle in the view of any reasonable person.
Believe it or not, some of us were around when Obama tried the same thing with Fox and this board, rightly, was up in arms over it.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:33 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Because it’s a stupid political stunt that will cost the RNC even more votes in the midterms.
Republicans are not getting their news from liberal media outlets.
quote:
It also offends the basic principles behind the First Amendment.
what? By supressing freedom of the press.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:38 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:That would be real entertainment. They've been the same mouthpiece for Iran that Tokyo Rose was for Japan.
they must be given the opportunity to dispute the ban before getting the boot
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:40 pm to IvoryBillMatt
White House Access Is a Privilege — Not a Right
quote:https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/09/white-house-access-is-a-privilege-not-a-right/
2009: The Obama White House branded Fox News as the “research arm” and “communications arm” of the Republican Party, barred it from a round of exclusive Sunday show interviews, instructed agencies to “skip” including it in pooled coverage, derided it as “really not news,” and undertook an all-out effort to isolate the organization. Barack Hussein Obama now calls a Fox ban “unimaginable,” but his White House tried it — and his spokesman admitted they were willing to do it.
2010: The Obama Justice Department labeled Fox News correspondent James Rosen a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal leak case, secretly monitored his emails and phone calls, and tracked his movements — an “unprecedented” level of surveillance and intimidation of a journalist over his reporting.
2011: Obama White House officials restricted the Boston Herald from coverage — writing that pool slots depended on covering Obama “fairly” — after the paper ran a front page Mitt Romney op-ed.
2011: After a San Francisco Chronicle reporter recorded protesters interrupting an Obama fundraiser, White House officials threatened to strip the outlet from access and warned of retaliation if the paper reported on it.
2012: The Obama Justice Department secretly seized two months of telephone records covering more than 20 Associated Press lines used by more than a dozen journalists — targeting them over their reporting.
2023: The Biden White House blocked New York Post reporter Steven Nelson from covering the President’s only daytime public event — despite empty seats in the room — after the reporter pressed Biden on his family’s shady business dealings.
2023: The Biden Administration restricted more than 440 reporters from White House access through a new, retroactive press credentialing process — with independent and conservative journalists taking a heavy share of the hit. The White House Correspondents’ Association barely objected.
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:46 pm to geauxbrown
Yeah, this is sloppy from Trump and just plays into the tyrant BS.
LINK
quote:
A lot of people wrote in, both in comments and in my DMs, after yesterday’s article criticizing Donald Trump’s goofball policies with White House credentials. It’s true that no one has a right to a press pass. It’s also true that presidents deny passes all the time for political reasons. The issue is that a president can’t say, out loud, that he or she is denying a pass for speech reasons. From Perry v. Sindermann:
For at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that, even though a person has no “right” to a valuable governmental benefit, and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest, especially his interest in freedom of speech.
This doesn’t rate high on my personal list of First Amendment threats (I actually laughed the first time I heard about the “Gulf of America” story), but it’s clearly verboten and when Trump does things like this, it underscores that he doesn’t care about rules. If you want to show that you “cherish” the free press, do what every president does: mess with them legally.
LINK
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:12 pm to Trevaylin
Not the same thing.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:20 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
But he could also dismiss, as there are procedural grounds that the Trump admin d/n follow, and could simply put them in the position of doing this again, only following said procedures to address lack of notice and whether or not the decision is arbitrary, as was the decision in a case when a Dist Judge ruled that the WH violated Jim Acosta's right to due process (Fifth Amendment).
If so, then all of this could well be intentional, again generating intense public interest in a subject matter that otherwise no one would be talking or thinking about.
I'm good either way.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News