I am so sick of this self-important Trump hater. President Trump is fully justified in denying this arrogant idiot access to the White House Press Room.

Just watch



Rude and unprofessional does not even begin to cover it.

The president is not a pawn of the NFL, or the politics created and fostered by Barry the Red, you piece of shit. Why don’t you ask the SJW foozball players if they’re all ready to donate a truly significant portion of their salaries to combat “social injustice”?

That’s if you can pry them out of the titty bars, or stop them from fighting and homiciding long enough to appear to give a shit.

Fuck this guy.

This isn't about the NFL or the Eagles. This is about the disruptive behavior of an unqualified person who does nothing but show her contempt for the President.

I know; yes, he should be excluded so he can bitch and moan about his unfair treatment... and on the same token, see of he gets sympathy from the thugs he pretends to champion. Apologies for the drift.

ETA- I got a minute into it and shut it off- completely missed the second troll. She has no business being in the room if she cannot show the simple respect of being civil. You can bet she would be the perfect sycophant in the presence of the recently dislodged squatter...Despite all the social injustice occurring during that administration.

Self important is exactly the descriptor for that person.

My email has been sent.

Done!

I emailed a suggestion some time ago proposing giving more press passes to non traditional media and then doing a daily drawing to see who got into the briefing room.

Email sent.

I love this woman!

quote:

I would be happy to answer if you'd stop talking long enough to let me do that.

quote:

It was addressed, your question. I'm not going to continue to engage with you.

Has the nicest, most professional, yet most direct way of saying "STFU, please"

She's almost as bad as Acosta.

Why they still have these daily briefings is a mystery to me.

What I'd like to see:
Next press conference Sarah announces the new format. Each one begins with the briefing. Then it's opened up for questions.
Sarah selects reporter for each question by pointing them out like she does now.
But, the first time there is ANY of the interruption/over talking BS the conference is OVER. She just stops, turns and leaves the room.
When there is an idiot like April or Accosta that can't seem to formulate an intelligent question they just don't ever get selected.
In other words force them to adapt to common courtesy in the exchange or be ignored. Their choice.
I'd even keep the conference running until all questions are addressed (within reason) or until the rules are breached.
Right now it's a zoo I won't even watch.

Ryan is being applauded for her behavior. Objectivity and civil discourse is lost on the fourth estate. An example needs to be set and she needs to be shot down.

What's the best email to complain to?

Bruce

Done!

quote:

Originally posted by k5blazer:
Ryan is being applauded for her behavior. Objectivity and civil discourse is lost on the fourth estate.

Yup. It's not really reporting any more. It's propagandizing. It's been that way for quite some time. Only now they no longer even attempt to be subtle about it.

quote:

Originally posted by k5blazer:
An example needs to be set and she needs to be shot down.

That'll just be "racism" and perhaps misogyny. And whatever else they can hurl they think will stick.

Not really, but that'll be the narrative.

This group of disrespectful children needs to be treated just like one would deal with children. One warning for bad behavior, and then sent to their room for the night without dinner. In Ryan and Acosta's case (or anyone else), that would involve being banned from the press briefings for at least a period of time. Ryan 'feels' she's the intellectual in the room who, much like Auntie Maxine, will be the champion of the people and hold this administration accountable. Also like Auntie Maxine, Ryan is too stupid to be respected as being a credible person, so she has to trade on race and/or gender to draw attention to herself.

I say Para should put her on moderated status, 30 days!

Unfortunately, this type of nonsense is applauded today by enablers that would defend her 'style' of questioning.

This type of gross disrespect would never have happened in decades past. It's a little alarming that it is accepted, and expected, now.

H&K-Guy

Done.

used this email:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

"Will the President have a roundtable discussion with NFL football players on the topic of social justice and police-involved shootings?"

Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...ot-in-shootings.html


A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.

The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.

The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — those at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones.

The counterintuitive results provoked debate after the study was posted on Monday, mostly about the volume of police encounters and the scope of the data. Mr. Fryer emphasizes that the work is not the definitive analysis of police shootings, and that more data would be needed to understand the country as a whole. This work focused only on what happens once the police have stopped civilians, not on the risk of being stopped at all. Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police.

Mr. Fryer, the youngest African-American to receive tenure at Harvard and the first to win a John Bates Clark medal, a prize given to the most promising American economist under 40, said anger after the deaths of Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others drove him to study the issue. “You know, protesting is not my thing,” he said. “But data is my thing. So I decided that I was going to collect a bunch of data and try to understand what really is going on when it comes to racial differences in police use of force.”

He and student researchers spent about 3,000 hours assembling detailed data from police reports in Houston; Austin, Tex.; Dallas; Los Angeles; Orlando, Fla.; Jacksonville, Fla.; and four other counties in Florida.

They examined 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015, coding police narratives to answer questions such as: How old was the suspect? How many police officers were at the scene? Were they mostly white? Was the officer at the scene for a robbery, violent activity, a traffic stop or something else? Was it nighttime? Did the officer shoot after being attacked or before a possible attack? One goal was to determine if police officers were quicker to fire at black suspects.



In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.

But police shootings are only part of the picture. What about situations in which an officer might be expected to fire, but doesn’t?

To answer this, Mr. Fryer focused on one city, Houston. The Police Department there let the researchers look at reports not only for shootings but also for arrests when lethal force might have been justified. Mr. Fryer defined this group to include encounters with suspects the police subsequently charged with serious offenses like attempting to murder an officer, or evading or resisting arrest. He also considered suspects shocked with Tasers.

Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black. This estimate was not precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But in various models controlling for different factors and using different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.



.

I agree people like her have no place in the white house, if you can't be professional, cordial and polite, even in your disagreement it's time to go. SH shouldn't have to deal with people like this.

Its why I think they should stop the daily briefing, put out a press release daily with updates, and have one a week at the max. My email would be more about that tactic, so you eliminate the problem without having to have any retribution for banning a black militant leftist progressive pink hat wearing woman...

OTOH, a benefit of letting her stay and act out is that it reinforces the notion of the abusive left wing media when it comes to Trump.

She confirms their horrid practices and abuse of the media, right there in our faces, every day the public gets to see a very polite, nice, strong woman be abused and talked over by the same press staff that kissed Barry the Red's (I Like that) ass with softballs.