Kayleigh McEnany

[togor]

it's possible I skip reading them because I don't live to find a flaw

Sure, that's possible.

But for many of us, this administration trips too many flags in separation of powers, rule of law, honesty in government, self dealing, and old fashioned competence that as citizens we cannot ignore it, no matter how much we wish it wasn't so. The stories are written because they're there to be written.

[rayg]

Here we go again.....ZZZZZ Lol

[lyman]

Sure, that's possible.

But for many of us, this administration trips too many flags in separation of powers, rule of law, honesty in government, self dealing, and old fashioned competence that as citizens we cannot ignore it, no matter how much we wish it wasn't so. The stories are written because they're there to be written.

jeez,

just about spit out my tea,,,,,,,


like any of that happened with Obama,, or would have with Hillz,,,,,

[togor]

jeez,

just about spit out my tea,,,,,,,


like any of that happened with Obama,, or would have with Hillz,,,,,

Missing the point.

Again.

The point is to cover it when it does happen with an adversarial press that isn't afraid to challenge the government's version of things, when the facts point in a different direction.

Obama, Trump, Clinton, Reagan, Truman, etc.,

the principle holds.

Who is president now?

As it is, Trump owns the AM dial, and a large number of local TV stations are owned by medial conglomerates that are sympathetic to his administration. Plus the tabloid media, Rupert Murdoch., etc. So Trump has plenty of media friends. "Balance" is a BS argument at this point.

Why is it wrong for writers, people in media, to ask why Trump feels it necessary to sack a bunch of IGs? The complaint is that they're too independent. Well isn't that what we want in IGs? Or do you expect IGs to be loyalsts for the administration? Do you want Trump to be able to treat bailout moneys like a slush fund?

[rayg]

Almost every post of your's when people reply to your post, You always say, Missing the point. Maybe because your point gets lost as your post runs in so many different directions. Maybe pair the post down by sticking to only one issue at a time and not a bunch all together in one post..stop rambling on so many issues a once..Might help...

[togor]

Ray

Thought you wanted out of this conversation?

The point is simple: a tough press challenging the government is part of the master plan. True in any era, even this one.

Off of that simple theme, discussion.

For example, Obama administration did not like leaks. Implication is that leaks were getting into stories they didn't like. But Obama admin took the traditional view, which is that the press has a legit role to play, even if government didn't like it. Trump by contrast calls the press "the enemy of the people." Those are fighting words, plain and simple. Trump creates the media fracas so that he can dismiss ALL NEGATIVE STORIES as unfair media attacks. Unfair? Boo hoo.

[rayg]

Togor Quote "Thought you wanted out of this conversation?"

Sorry only tried to help you with your posts, will keep my mouth shut from now on..Lol..

[togor]

How about we bring it back to the OP, Kayleigh McEnany. By saying something wildly stupid on Fox, she's now the White House Press Secretary, a job that she may or may not hold until next January. After that, she has to compete with other blondes in sleeveless dresses to get a place in the Fox ecosystem (Tomi Lahren for example).

Apparently she wrote a book about a New American Revolution & Trump, etc. I wonder if she had this Sebastian Faure quote in her head as she did so:

Every revolution ends in the reappearance of a new ruling class

.
If so, it's clear she wants to climb aboard the train if she can and is willing to say anything to get and keep a place. The woman deserves no honeymoon from the press and hopefully will not get one.

[lyman]

Missing the point.

Again.

The point is to cover it when it does happen with an adversarial press that isn't afraid to challenge the government's version of things, when the facts point in a different direction.

Obama, Trump, Clinton, Reagan, Truman, etc.,

the principle holds.

Who is president now?

As it is, Trump owns the AM dial, and a large number of local TV stations are owned by medial conglomerates that are sympathetic to his administration. Plus the tabloid media, Rupert Murdoch., etc. So Trump has plenty of media friends. "Balance" is a BS argument at this point.

Why is it wrong for writers, people in media, to ask why Trump feels it necessary to sack a bunch of IGs? The complaint is that they're too independent. Well isn't that what we want in IGs? Or do you expect IGs to be loyalsts for the administration? Do you want Trump to be able to treat bailout moneys like a slush fund?

look up, ,

keep looking,

didja see it go by?


doubt it,


that adversarial press you seem to just love was more like a loving lap dog for the past president,


but,, you keep on believing,

[togor]

I guess that's one way of looking at things....Trump admin blunders should go unexamined because Fox took it easy on the Obama administration. If you say so.

[lyman]

I guess that's one way of looking at things....Trump admin blunders should go unexamined because Fox took it easy on the Obama administration. If you say so.

keep looking up,

[Vern Humphrey]

keep looking up,

And maybe a sea gull will fly over.