every reporter not being allowed to attend every segment of every dinner is CENSORSHIP!! anyone who disagrees is a trump shill!

there is no way anyone could have a reasonable argument against this, because fender doesn't like it.
And we all know he is the infallible arbiter of what is good and true in the world.

when you can't defend the action, just misrepresent the criticism. camboy 101.
read the article, you desperate hack.

This post was edited by fender on Feb 28 2019 05:32pm

I can defend the action. Part of that defense was alluded to in my mockery of you.
You chose to preface any honest discussion of the events by alleging that shills think its OK and implying that it would be ridiculous to do so.



I did. Just another unintelligent false assumption about your political opponents that underestimates and discounts their position.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Feb 28 2019 05:40pm

amuse me

make an argument for why its terrible and is/should be illegal.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Feb 28 2019 06:57pm

so being illegal is the bar it would have to pass for you to 'allow' criticism, to not be a total hack and attack anyone pointing out yet another instance of your cult leader singling out journalists whose question he dislikes? interesting...

speaks for itself that YOU were the person triggered by my comment about trump shills being fine with this, as if to prove me right...

No, but nice leap in logic and evasion of making a good faith argument.
Anti-intellectual scum as usual.

unlike YOUR frequent and blatant misinterpretations of my statements, my assumption was a reasonable conclusion based on your previous post.
i'm not surprised you're trying to escalate this and make it personal (again) since you obviously want to avoid the topic, but please explain to me how singling out specific journalists that asked inconvenient questions is a good thing to you. why did it trigger you so much that i pointed that out?

This post was edited by fender on Feb 28 2019 07:19pm

No, you are unhinged.

I said make your argument for why its terrible and is or should be illegal.
I didn't say something has to be illegal in order to be criticized. Thats not a reasonable assumption.
If you want to make a case for why this terrible horrible censorship should be legal but is still horrible, feel free to do that.


You time and again accuse me and others of being shills and then want to say i make it personal.
No, you are the scumbag who makes it personal and always attack the person instead of making an argument.

Like I said, make your argument and i will address it.
Dont piss and moan about your delusions of what you think my comment is saying.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Feb 28 2019 07:30pm

I'm unfamiliar with "press pools" and confused about the timeline spelled out in the article. How close in time were the first series of questions, in which I believe they included questions about Cohen, and Trump's interactions with Kim? If they were back-to-back or occurred at the same time, then it doesn't really seem like the time or place for such questions.