-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Boo fucking hoo. The "journalists" can do their job without cameras can't they? If not, they're in the wrong profession.
-
They only want to increase their own brand and are butthurt about it. If you'd be honest that's the reason why, I'd probably back you up.
-
If you were honest that you wouldn't tolerate it with previous Presidents then we might think you aren't party to this sham of a Presidency
-
If you didn't have such a condescending attitude and assuming my views, I might actually respond to your accusation.
-
But you did anyway.
-


"respond to the accusation" as in the actual accusation leveled at me. Good lord learn context. -
You, on the other hand, are just an anonymous troll without the balls to reveal your real identity. Man up, Pepe!
-
Anonymous? He's posting his face, and you're posting a cartoon. No need to resist.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And has this move in any way improved Trump's standing, the nature of the coverage he gets? No. It has been purely punitive.
-
You may be misinterpreting the motive. It's not about "improving his standing re: coverage nature," it's about *changing* the coverage topic
-
Surely he doesn't think blocking the media will make them cover him more favorably, but I assume he thinks it makes them change the topics.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Three straight weeks of no on-camera briefings
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.