Ship of Fools: A Boycott to Watch--but, then maybe not.

Thread: A Boycott to Watch--but, then maybe not. Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020095

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Turns out that a number of the major mainstream media outlets are pulling out of the White House Correspondents Dinner in which the president gets to share some laughs with the press.

Today, the press secretary pointedly snubbed CNN and the New York Times, by not inviting them to a White House Briefing.

In retaliation, the outlets are threatening not to show up at the dinner. They may buy their usual tables and just not show up. By buying their tables the Orange One cannot put his select people in the seats.

I say maybe not because I really don't think I can watch the dinner this year. The Orange One's speech is very tiresome, IMHO. I also think if the general audience viewership is down it will speak volumes.

In the meantime, did you hear how the Conservative Political Action Council (CPAC) got punked today? Turns out two young men were handing out flags with Trump's name on them just before he was to speak to the assembly. They handed out over 1,000 of the flags, and people were eagerly waiting to wave them as he took the stage. Small problem, practically none of the flag wavers realized the flags were replicas of the Russian flag. Trump aides had to quickly confiscate them.

And there is also talk about how many of the Democrats are refusing to shake his hand during the upcoming address to the joint session of the Congress. Every member of Congress also gets a ticket to the gallery during the speech. The Democrats are now planning on inviting someone who has been affected by Trump's Executive Orders. Again, another event I do not plan on watching.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
And there is also talk about how many of the Democrats are refusing to shake his hand during the upcoming address to the joint session of the Congress.

How do you think that will be viewed by the population at large? It is clear here on the Good Ship The President has few admirers, and as such this stand may be appreciated by those... But will it seem petty to the general populace, and proof to supporters of Trump of the inquity of the Democrats?

Interesting about the Press Dinner. Is that the one where presidents go all comedic [who are their speechwriters?] and self-deprecating? People whooped and were in hysterics about Obama's last one if I recall, but these things just seem a bit fake, let's-play-to-the-masses-and-let-them-see-how-down-to-earth-I-am-despite-the-fact-I'm-the-1% to me. But I may be an old grump.

Ian,
who would prefer not to shake T's hand...doubt the opportunity would arise anyway.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... I say maybe not because I really don't think I can watch the dinner this year. The Orange One's speech is very tiresome, IMHO. I also think if the general audience viewership is down it will speak volumes. ...

As television, I'd have thought even watching snooker or endless reruns of Dad's Army was a more interesting way to spend the evening than watching a whole lot of journalists eat their dinners.

[ 25. February 2017, 09:17: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

The BBC was among those excluded as well from yesterday's briefing. AP & Time were included, but refused to participate when they learned the others were barred. The WSJ says had they known before their person went in of the ban, they'd have refused to participate as well.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... I say maybe not because I really don't think I can watch the dinner this year. The Orange One's speech is very tiresome, IMHO. I also think if the general audience viewership is down it will speak volumes. ...
As television, I'd have thought even watching snooker or endless reruns of Dad's Army was a more interesting way to spend the evening than watching a whole lot of journalists eat their dinners.

Then you're not familiar with the recent popular trend for reality TV shows featuring anonymous white collar professionals eating and drinking? They're all the rage here in the US.

Since we seem to get most of our reality TV ideas from the UK, I had assumed the smash hit Lawyers Lunching was just an adaptation of an original UK show, Barristers Brunching or some such...

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I'm with IC on this. All this is inside-the-Beltway scuffling, meaningless out there in flyover country. Where Pat Robertson was saying just the other day that the PG is God's anointed representative. If God approves of groping crotches then that casts a lurid new light upon the seraphim, and their need to hold one pair of wings over their midsection.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
And there is also talk about how many of the Democrats are refusing to shake his hand during the upcoming address to the joint session of the Congress.
How do you think that will be viewed by the population at large? It is clear here on the Good Ship The President has few admirers, and as such this stand may be appreciated by those... But will it seem petty to the general populace, and proof to supporters of Trump of the inquity of the Democrats?

Of course who would want to shake his hand given how abusive he is about it? His infamous "I'll show you who's boss" handshake would be aversive to anybody but the brownest-nosed toady.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And women know to carry big handbags. Sturdy leather. Front and center.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Were I to meet The Orange One I'm afraid good manners mean a handshake - but (given his self-admitted grabbing' behaviours) I'd make damn sure I wore gloves [Snigger]

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'm with IC on this. All this is inside-the-Beltway scuffling, meaningless out there in flyover country. Where Pat Robertson was saying just the other day that the PG is God's anointed representative. If God approves of groping crotches then that casts a lurid new light upon the seraphim, and their need to hold one pair of wings over their midsection.

Some of us in "flyover country" (a term we find denigrating, btw) do care. Also, isn't Oat Robertson in Virginia?

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

I should have said this in my previous post. I'm not trying to pick on Brenda. A lot of people use the term "flyover country." But when we think about the impression that many here in the heartland have that Dems (liberals, not Trump people) are bicoastal elites, you can see that perhaps some forms of handy slang may contribute to that feeling or worse, to the feeling that folks here don't count. Again, not accusing Brenda if this, just aware of hos things might be perceived here in the Midwest.

sabine

[ 25. February 2017, 20:43: Message edited by: sabine ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Were I to meet The Orange One I'm afraid good manners mean a handshake - but (given his self-admitted grabbing' behaviours) I'd make damn sure I wore gloves

Preferably blue nitrile.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I should have said this in my previous post. I'm not trying to pick on Brenda. A lot of people use the term "flyover country." But when we think about the impression that many here in the heartland have that Dems (liberals, not Trump people) are bicoastal elites, you can see that perhaps some forms of handy slang may contribute to that feeling or worse, to the feeling that folks here don't count. Again, not accusing Brenda if this, just aware of hos things might be perceived here in the Midwest.

sabine

Excellent post. I too find that phrase incredibly elitist and condescending. My best friend lives in small-town Oklahoma and he can spot condescending bicoastal BS with pinpoint accuracy. It's like "rust belt". I live in a major "rust belt" city which is enjoying a bit of a rebound, but to a lot of people (most of whom have never set foot here), my city is still a national punchline. It's condescending as hell and becoming really tiresome and outdated. Plus, the majority of people in my city and the surrounding county voted for Hillary Clinton (59%).

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

That's precisely my point. There are things that nobody cares about, except a tiny media-centric clique in Washington DC. the WH Correspondents Dinner is a fine example. Does anyone out there really care about it, oh you in rural states? No. It is not real. Nobody cares.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Several "fake news" sources (e.g., Washington Post, CNN) are now reporting that the PG himself is boycotting the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
[Killing me]

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
That's precisely my point. There are things that nobody cares about, except a tiny media-centric clique in Washington DC. the WH Correspondents Dinner is a fine example. Does anyone out there really care about it, oh you in rural states? No. It is not real. Nobody cares.

You're right. For someof us, this is a humorous thing. But for many, it's barely a blip in the radar if on the radar at all. I suspect my Trump supporting acquaintances will only hear about this by accident or through a lens if their own choosing.

However, my point was different. And I should have indicated that it was a tangent

There are a lot of Trump supporters out here in the Midwest and Great Plains who feel disrespected by what they perceive as an uncaring attitude by (in their minds) libral elites. As a progressive, I don't believe that the level of uncaring or eliteness is a fair representation. But it is a perception that helped to guide many folks to Trump.

Language mstters, and if we hope to encourage people here to believe that librals and progressives care about them, it might be good policy to avoid descriptive phrases that stereotype the area as only rural or a place where planes never stop.

sabine

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Everyone cared about the Corresspandent's dinner for the last eight years. If you were young Hollywood and wanted Twitter followers to take you seriously as a politics junky, it was the not-NY-or-LA event of the year.

The danger here (I will say small danger) is that people will think that the media is boycotting because the "in" crowd isn't there any more. The media should make a compelling case that the boycott is about press censorship. You won't answer tough questions? We won't pretend that we're all friends for the night.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

Interesting about the Press Dinner. Is that the one where presidents go all comedic [who are their speechwriters?] and self-deprecating?

Remember Trump at the big Catholic charity dinner in New York - I forget its name - during the campaign? It'll be at least that bad.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I've enjoyed the clips I've seen of the correspondents' dinner, over the years, though some of the jokes had sharp, jagged edges.

Pres. Obama did a great job. However, some people blame him for T's running for president, this time around. At the 2011 (?) dinner, O took some sharp verbal jabs at T, who was decidedly unamused. Supposedly, that spurred T to run in 2016.

Given how thin-skinned T is, it may be just as well--for everyone involved--if he doesn't attend. He would probably go all Krakatoa.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Trump has announced he would not be attending the dinner.

I'm fairly bored with people who say that liberals need to be nice and pretend nothing is wrong. Right now the Democratic politicians are being pushed to resist Trump by the supporters of the Democratic party. If they decide to pretend everything is fine, they stand to lose the support of their base.

How do those who would be upset about Democrats not shaking hands with Trump feel about the Congressman who heckled Obama as a liar? I didn't see much complaint about that.

8 years of Obama taking the high road has hollowed out the Democratic party.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Palimpsest, what do you mean by "hollowed out"?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... However, some people blame him for T's running for president, this time around. ...

There is one person and only two groups of people who bear any responsibility whatever for Trump being president. Nobody else. That's just yet another example of 'we are all guilty' syndrome. It is an excuse for excusing the moral guilt of those who actually bear it and evading our own guilt for the things we actually are responsible for.

1. The person - Trump himself for putting himself forward. If he had even the most minimal level of self awareness that we expect of one another, it would have made it clear to him that he had neither the ability nor the moral calibre for the job.

2. Those Republicans who voted to choose him as their party's candidate. And

3 Those members of the electorate who voted for Electoral College members pledged to choose him.

They are the guilty ones. Nobody else. The rest of you, whatever else you may bear moral responsibility for, do not carry responsibility for that one.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Enoch: would there be room in your blame list for those politicians who year-in year-out ignored the situation an plight of those doing it tough who turned to Trump?

[I am not indicating politicians should bow to the whim of every thought from a member of the public, let alone sexist, racist, etc. ones; just curious if those they thought left them behind are blameworthy. I'm not sure.]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Right now the Democratic politicians are being pushed to resist Trump by the supporters of the Democratic party.

Why are they needing to be pushed? Surely the job of elected politicians is to resist the policies and priorities of the other party (at least in a two party system - where there are many parties their role will also involve supporting other minority parties in areas of mutual interest). With a Republican President and Republican control of the legislature, the job of the Democrat representatives is to resist those policies that are put forward which are are contrary to their political viewpoint and the welfare of those they are elected to represent.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

you would think that it would be the job of the opposition to oppose in a bilateral system=. But there's been this rash of "bipartisan" meaning the Democrats move center and the Republicans move further right.
There was a significant group of Democratic congressman who were trying to decide if they should try to compromise with Trump. That started with Obama wasting four years trying to be post partisan. The hollowing out of the party was people realizing if they wanted to oppose the right wing, the Democrats for the most part were a feeble reed. They kept talking about how to make the working class democrats who voted trump happy by compromising.
Democratic Politicans oppose trump.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Enoch--

AFAIK, the electors for the Electoral College aren't voted on by the general public. IIRC, different states have different ways of choosing them.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Enoch: would there be room in your blame list for those politicians who year-in year-out ignored the situation an plight of those doing it tough who turned to Trump? ...

No. No room at all. They may be guilty of other things, but they aren't guilty of putting Trump in power unless they voted for him.

Golden Key, I'd assumed that with the odd indirect election system the US uses for the Presidential part of the election in stead of a straight nationwide head-count, you vote for the delegates. Obviously, I've never been in a US voting booth. I've no idea what is displayed on the ballot paper or what the mechanism is for making your choice.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Enoch: would there be room in your blame list for those politicians who year-in year-out ignored the situation an plight of those doing it tough who turned to Trump? ...
No. No room at all. They may be guilty of other things, but they aren't guilty of putting Trump in power unless they voted for him.

Golden Key, I'd assumed that with the odd indirect election system the US uses for the Presidential part of the election in stead of a straight nationwide head-count, you vote for the delegates. Obviously, I've never been in a US voting booth. I've no idea what is displayed on the ballot paper or what the mechanism is for making your choice.

In the states I've voted in, you vote for the Presidential candidate by Name and Party. The party does the work of selecting delegates, often by local vote and usually party loyalists. The delegates are pretty obscure unless they don't vote as instructed.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Many thanks for the clarification.

Anyway, those who I was placing in the third category of the guilty are those who voted, by whatever means, in the US General Election, for Trump as their choice for president.

I suppose those who voted for Trump in states where he did not win any electoral college delegates could claim to defend themselves as not quite as guilty because their votes did not contribute to his becoming President. It would still be much like looking lustfully on a woman and committing adultery in one's heart.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0