Election 2016

Trump Bans the Washington Post Then Proves Them Right

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

The Donald Trump campaign banned the Washington Post from his campaign events for accurately reporting that he accused President Obama of being in cahoots with terrorists, but Trump repeated the claim this morning, asserting that he was "right!"

The accusation that President Obama is secretly in league with terrorists is obviously ridiculous -- and racist -- but what we can also take away from this is that Breitbart may be the only publication Trump believes to be credible. The Washington Post joins a long and growing list of outlets that have been banned from Trump's events.

Not coincidentally, Breitbart has purged itself of anyone who is even remotely critical of Trump. It's now Trump's personal propaganda outlet.

The White House press corps, if it wasn't disbanded entirely under a Trump presidency, would most likely consist exclusively of right wing tabloids.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    The accusation that President Obama is secretly in league with terrorists is obviously ridiculous — and racist[.]

    Need your opinion here, folks. Apologies in advance for stomaching it, but: is this racist?

    • muselet

      It’s ignorant, misinformed, disingenuous (that seems to be my favorite word lately), deliberately obtuse, oddly—and wrongly—pedantic, and bigoted, yes. Racist, yes, because the people responsible for that 2:55 of stupidity and bile are trying to call Barack Obama a nigger without actually using that word.

      Don’t know if that actually answers your question or not.


      • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

        Why don’t you tell us what you really think?

      • GrafZeppelin127

        It kind of does. The first person I asked came back and said it was not racist — all the other things, yes, but not racist. My feeling was that it is racist, for essentially the same reason Ashby suggested, viz., because it amounts to an accusation (or a set of accusations) levied against the POTUS that wouldn’t be if he weren’t … well, you know.

        Now, the person who sent this to me, OTOH, characterized it as a “joke,” in the vein of “political cartoons n stuff,” after I asked him politely and without embellishment to “Please don’t send me things like this.” To wit:

        I’ve never seen a guy who has no levity or can joke in his life like u! … life w/out having fun, even poking fun at oneself or other things like political cartoons n stuff is appropriate. Not ever laughing can bring ultimate sorry. … U need to lighten up!!

        There was some other nasty stuff in there that was more personal, which I’ve excised here. Suffice to say he and I have not spoken since.

        So far, no one’s been able to identify or explain what the “joke” is.

        • muselet

          I believe the “joke,” such as it is, is that them damn’ libruls! say Barack Obama (or Obambi or Oblamea—I hadn’t encountered that one until this week—or whatever childish name calling is currently in vogue) is smart, but look how stupid he really is! (and, in this specific case, there’s an overlay of Islamophobia and hey, his middle name’s Hussein!).

          Some people should really not do comedy.

          The same people would be making the same kinds of accusations against any D in the White House, and they’d insist loud and long that they’re not racist. The difference I perceive, though, is the tone. In the past, Ds have been accused of terrible crimes against America in tones of outrage, even fury: when Rs mocked John Kerry in 2004, it was less to make fun of him—it wasn’t actually seen as funny that he windsurfed—and more to add a visual to an accusation of flip-flopping on issues.

          Ds mocked George W Bush, to be sure, but there were also serious intellectual arguments made against his policies. For the past eight years, Rs have abandoned any pretense of analysis or seriousness in favor of unfocused derision directed toward Barack Obama.

          I doubt that derision is solely because of the color of Obama’s skin. It’s also partly because the Wingnut Wurlitzer is bigger and louder than ever, and partly because social media platforms create a sort of amplification effect among people of like opinions.

          But I doubt there would be this kind of viciousness if the sitting President were white.


          • GrafZeppelin127

            I’ve always felt that racism was a secondary motivator, at least for most people, w/r/t the “viciousness” you’re describing. Seasoning for the hate stew, if you will. I agree that any Democrat would be subjected to the same manner and degree of unprincipled, ungrounded, intemperate abuse. Only the “flavor” would be different.

            What made me see that video as racist as well as everything else is the notion, be it subtle or gross, that the POTUS with with the brown skin and the foreign-/Arab-/Muslim-sounding name must be a foreign Arab brown-skinned Muslim terrorist, or that he must support or have some allegiance to or affinity for foreign Arab brown-skinned Muslim terrorists, which is the only explanation for why he “lies” about Islam consisting of or being about, now or ever, anything other than foreign Arab brown-skinned Muslim terrorists.

            I actually wonder if my friend actually watched this before disseminating it, and before popping off at me when I asked him not to do that, because nothing about it resembles a “joke,” or a “political cartoon.” It’s not humor, mirth or satire, and it doesn’t “make fun of” anyone or anything; it’s propaganda, and propaganda comes from a place of hate, not humor.

          • muselet

            We’re coming at your original question from different angles, but I think we’re saying basically the same thing.


  • muselet

    Seth Meyer: “By election day, the only media outlets that are going to be allowed on Trump’s campaign will be the National Enquirer and Rich Pricks Monthly.”


  • Badgerite

    What else is new. The GOP has been dog whistling this crap for 8 years while President Obama has been patiently and competently doing his job. The job he has sworn to do. Countless terrorist leaders both of Al Qaeda and of ISIS have been killed at the direction of this administration. And what the GOP has done in Congress is to ensure that any lone wolf terrorist sympathizer in this country, can freely and openly walk into a gun store and buy what is essentially an anti personnel, military style, killing machine. And no one, not the FBI, not the Department of Defense, not intelligence services, not even the President of the United States can do anything about it. Congress could though. The GOP chooses not to. Even to the point of insisting that someone on a terrorist watch list who cannot get on an airplane in this country can indeed, walk into any gun store and buy this kind of weapon with no questions asked. It isn’t as if this act of mass killing with this kind of weaponry is an outlier in this country. We have been through this before. In Sandy Hook, it was grade school children. The shooter was not an immigrant, the son of immigrants or in any way a sympathizer if radical Islam. In Orlando it was LGBT people. The targets may differ. The weapon used to do the mass killing is the same. And there is a reason for this. And it is that that is what this particular weapon, a semi automatic ASSAULT rifle, is designed to do. And lest they start to say how much less deadly this kind of weaponry is than a fully automatic weapon, so, it’s all good, let me just clarify for them what a total load of crap that is.
    As Bob Cesca has pointed out in one of his posts at the Daily Banter, the automatic part of that matters is the automatic reload which on a ‘semi’ automatic assault rifle, is FULLY AUTOMATIC. Were

  • Aynwrong

    Just saw Hugh Hewitt on MSNBC justifying and rationalizing Trump’s entire response to Orlando. He actually had the gall to claim that Obama pointing out Trump’s xenophobia was a “straw man.” Hewitt is a walking, talking Gish gallop.

    These people are soulless.

    • muselet

      I first became aware of Hugh Hewitt back in the 1990s. He was a smarmy, disingenuous, dead-eyed Republican apologist then, and he’s only gotten worse since.


  • I already thought the WH Press Corps was joke, but under Trump it would be a full on clown car with the President as Chief Clown.