Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

This really puts things into perspective. Trump pulls so much shit all the time that people are actually desensitized to it. Like it's ok. But no it isn't...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MlDRJNYohoc

Democrats always rely on their supporters being uninformed with short memories.

Nearly 40 news organizations have accused the Obama administration of improperly controlling images of the president by limiting the access granted to independent photojournalists while allowing free rein by the White House’s own photographers. - https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-whi...story.html

To protect his foreign policy from scrutiny, Barack Obama conducted a vindictive war against journalists and their sources. He was no friend of the First Amendment. - https://www.cato.org/commentary/barack-o...free-press#

The press coalition, which included The Associated Press, major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, online services and newspapers, said the access limits also undercut Obama’s pledge to create a more transparent government, and impose “an arbitrary restraint and unwarranted interference on legitimate newsgathering activities.”- https://www.nfoic.org/blogs/news-media-p...ss-limits/

Revoking security clearance is well within the president's purview. Maybe if Obama cared more about national security, his own Secretary of State, Hillary, wouldn't have had a private email server that handled classified information and was likely accessed by foreign adversaries.

In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS), under the Obama administration, revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

He leaves out that the "students" in question are foreigners sowing protests against America and it's anti-discrimination laws.

Not to mention:

The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the administration's asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution and international law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from both sides today.

"Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply," said CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei, who presented arguments in the case. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government's claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration's claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killing." - https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obam...mbat-zones

Trump's admin has never claimed unilateral authority to kill American citizens.

Quote:Nearly 40 news organizations have accused the Obama administration of improperly controlling images of the president by limiting the access granted to independent photojournalists

Obama enjoyed his privacy. Restricting access of photographers to certain White house events is nothing compared to banning news services from press conferences because they criticize you.

Quote:Revoking security clearance is well within the president's purview.

Because a law firm opposed your policies? That's unprecedented. No other president would've gotten away with that.

Quote:He leaves out that the "students" in question are foreigners sowing protests against America and it's anti-discrimination laws.

Every student including foreigners has the right of free speech and of protest without being hunted down and deported like a terrorist. Nobody was ever treated like that under Obama.

"Foreign students in the US do have the right to protest, and this right is generally protected by the First Amendment. Specifically, they have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government, which all encompass the right to protest."

Quote:The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat.

It was during the time of our war against Al Qaeda and targeted only those identified to be involved in anti-american terrorism as authorized under Bush's AUMF:

Claim of Authority: The Obama administration argued that it had the authority to use lethal force, including drone strikes, against US citizens deemed to be a significant threat to the nation, even in areas where the US was not formally at war.

Legal Basis: The primary legal justification cited was the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, arguing that the US was in an ongoing armed conflict with al-Qaeda and associated forces, justifying the use of lethal force against their members, including US citizens.

Due Process Concerns: Critics, including the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, challenged this asserted authority, arguing that it violated the constitutional right to due process, which guarantees a fair judicial process before the government deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property.

Targeted Killings and Drone Strikes: The policy was primarily implemented through the use of drone strikes, which saw a significant increase during the Obama administration.

Anwar al-Awlaki: The targeted killing of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011 was a major focus of the controversy, as he was a US citizen killed without formal charges or trial.

Transparency and Accountability: The administration faced pressure to increase transparency about the targeted killing program and disclose information about its legal basis and civilian casualties.

Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG): In 2013, the Obama administration issued a Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG) to establish criteria and procedures for targeted killings, including standards for "near certainty" and "continuing and imminent" threats.

(Jun 14, 2025 03:26 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Nearly 40 news organizations have accused the Obama administration of improperly controlling images of the president by limiting the access granted to independent photojournalists

Obama enjoyed his privacy. Restricting access of photographers to certain White house events is nothing compared to banning news services from press conferences.

You seem to have missed this, more damning, part of my post:

To protect his foreign policy from scrutiny, Barack Obama conducted a vindictive war against journalists and their sources. He was no friend of the First Amendment. - https://www.cato.org/commentary/barack-o...free-press#

The press coalition, which included The Associated Press, major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, online services and newspapers, said the access limits also undercut Obama’s pledge to create a more transparent government, and impose “an arbitrary restraint and unwarranted interference on legitimate newsgathering activities.”- https://www.nfoic.org/blogs/news-media-p...ss-limits/

"The Associated Press, major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, online services and newspapers" all agreeing that Obama limited access.

Plus there's this:

“With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible ‘co-conspirator’ in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news,” the New York Times editorial board wrote. - https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/obama-...ree-press/

Obama did target Fox News... according to the New York Times.

Quote:

Quote:Revoking security clearance is well within the president's purview.

Because a law firm opposed your policies? That's unprecedented. No other president would've gotten away with that.

No President has ever been attacked for four years straight using a fake dossier bought by the law firm in question.

Quote:

Quote:He leaves out that the "students" in question are foreigners sowing protests against America and it's anti-discrimination laws.

Every student including foreigners has the right of free speech and of protest without being hunted down and deported like a terrorist. Nobody was ever treated like that under Obama.

No student, even citizen, has the right to harass, threaten, and block entry to minority students.

Since President Obama assumed office, he has deported more than 2 million human beings -- husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. In March, the president looked as if he couldn't stomach his deportation record any longer, ordering his new head of homeland security to review how the White House could make the nation's deportation policies more "humane."

Maybe the deporter-in-chief would be the reformer-in-chief after all.

But in late May, President Obama delayed the review... By doing so, the pace of the deportation machine will keep churning, grinding up thousands and thousands of more lives... - https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rig...horrifying

And you trying to defend Obama killing US citizens without due process tells us all we need to know about you.

Quote:The press coalition, which included The Associated Press, major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, online services and newspapers, said the access limits also undercut Obama’s pledge to create a more transparent government, and impose “an arbitrary restraint and unwarranted interference on legitimate newsgathering activities.”

LOL It's the same thing. You should've read the article's opening sentence:

"Dozens of leading news organizations are protesting to the White House against restrictions that sometimes keep journalists from taking pictures and video of President Barack Obama performing official duties."

There's nothing wrong with restricting photographers from following you around all day while you perform your duties. And needing privacy is not a restriction of the free press.

Quote:“With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible ‘co-conspirator’ in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news,” the New York Times editorial board wrote. - https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/obama-...ree-press/

Obama did target Fox News... according to the New York Times.

A legitimate issue of being a criminal news leak and NOT the banning of news services just because they criticize you. One concerns national security while the other concerns one's sensitive ego.

Quote:Since President Obama assumed office, he has deported more than 2 million human beings -- husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. In March, the president looked as if he couldn't stomach his deportation record any longer, ordering his new head of homeland security to review how the White House could make the nation's deportation policies more "humane."

Right..Illegal immigrants. Not the vindictive targeting of foreign students who protest the policies of your administration.

Quote:And you trying to defend Obama killing US citizens without due process tells us all we need to know about you.

During war everything's fair game, even traitors to the terrorists.The CIA has always been doing it. We just didn't wanna know about it.

(Jun 14, 2025 04:26 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:The press coalition, which included The Associated Press, major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, online services and newspapers, said the access limits also undercut Obama’s pledge to create a more transparent government, and impose “an arbitrary restraint and unwarranted interference on legitimate newsgathering activities.”

LOL It's the same thing. You should've read the article's opening sentence:

"Dozens of leading news organizations are protesting to the White House against restrictions that sometimes keep journalists from taking pictures and video of President Barack Obama performing official duties."

There's nothing wrong with restricting photographers from following you around all day while you perform your duties. And needing privacy is not a restriction of the free press.

I gave you the links, but you couldn't be bothered to read beyond affirming your assumption.

In addition to its vendetta against whistleblowers, Obama’s administration waged a robust campaign to harass and intimidate journalists, even mainstream journalists, who utilized leaked material. In May 2013, the Justice Department seized the records of phone lines that Associated Press employees used. AP confirmed that the records were from personal home and cell phones of reporters and editors, as well as phones that AP used in the press quarters of the House of Representatives. The administration’s contempt for the basic requirements of due process was alarming. As CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson noted, such a seizure was “unheard of.” Beyond the abusive display of power that those raids embodied, she was outraged that no advance notice was given to the AP about the subpoena. “Advance notice would have given AP the chance to challenge the move in court.” Of course, that predictable response likely was the reason the Justice Department did not follow such a procedure.

A coalition of 50 news organizations, including ABC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Committee for Freedom of the Press, submitted a letter of protest to Attorney General Eric Holder about the raid. It stated that “none of us can remember an instance where such an overreaching dragnet for newsgathering materials was deployed by the Department [of Justice], particularly without notice to the affected reporters or an opportunity to seek judicial review. The scope of this action calls into question the very integrity of the Department of Justice policies toward the press and its ability to balance, on its own, its police powers against the First Amendment rights of the news media and the public’s interest in reporting on all manner of conduct, including matters touching on national security which lie at the heart of this case.” Holder summarily rebuffed the protest, and there was no indication that it inhibited in the slightest the administration’s crackdown on leaks and news organizations using such information.
- https://www.cato.org/commentary/barack-o...free-press#

And if all those mainstream media outlets are calling "official photos and video handed out by the White House" “government propaganda," being forced to only use government-sanctioned photos and videos implicates government violation of the First Amendment's freedom of the press.

Quote:

Quote:“With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible ‘co-conspirator’ in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news,” the New York Times editorial board wrote. - https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/obama-...ree-press/

Obama did target Fox News... according to the New York Times.

A legitimate issue of being a criminal news leak and NOT the banning of news services just because they criticize you. One concerns national security while the other concerns one's sensitive ego.

Reporters listening to leakers is not a criminal offense. It's actually how whistleblowers expose government corruption.

Quote:

Quote:Since President Obama assumed office, he has deported more than 2 million human beings -- husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. In March, the president looked as if he couldn't stomach his deportation record any longer, ordering his new head of homeland security to review how the White House could make the nation's deportation policies more "humane."

Right..Illegal immigrants. Not the vindictive targeting of foreign students who protest the policies of your administration.

Foreign students who's visas are well within the executive branch authority to revoke.

22 C.F.R. 41.122(a) provides that a consular officer, the Secretary of State, or a DOS official to whom the Secretary of State has delegated authority is authorized to revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time, in his or her discretion. - https://myattorneyusa.com/immigration-bl...vocations/]

They were calling for the genocide of the Jews. That's literally what "from the river to the sea" means.
Would you have been so equanimous to such sentiments prior to the Holocaust? We all know how much you like Al Jazeera.

"Blocking reporters from covering news events at the Oval Office. Ousting journalists from their working spaces in the Pentagon. Investigating public media companies that are often the targets of conservative attacks.

In the three weeks since he returned to the White House, President Donald Trump and his administration have moved beyond his usual anti-news media rhetoric to take a variety of actions that have limited some outlets’ access while hitting others with lawsuits and directives that critics say are naked attempts to bend news coverage to his will.

“I don’t know if Trump himself has a ‘game plan’ per se, but it is clear that the overall picture is of an Administration that disdains a free press,” Rebecca Hamilton, a law professor at American University, said in an email. “Their view — and this is evident from Trump’s rhetoric, his prior lawsuits, the Pentagon office space memo, and the FCC investigations — is that any media outlets that don’t align themselves with Trump’s agenda are the enemy. This reflects a fundamental disrespect for the principles underlying a democratic commitment to a free press.”

In what may be the most glaring example of that, Associated Press reporters were blocked from covering Trump at White House events for two days in a row after the AP continued to refer to the body of water just south of the United States as the Gulf of Mexico instead of the Gulf of America, the new name Trump gave it in one of many executive orders he has signed since he took office. The AP Stylebook, which many news outlets use, including NBC News, published an update two days after Trump renamed the gulf on Jan. 21 that said the AP will continue calling it the Gulf of Mexico “while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.”

“Punishing journalists for not adopting state-mandated terminology is an alarming attack on press freedom,” the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonprofit group that advocates for First Amendment rights, said in a statement. “President Trump has the authority to change how the U.S. government refers to the Gulf. But he cannot punish a news organization for using another term. The role of our free press is to hold those in power accountable, not to act as their mouthpiece.”----
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...rcna191949

"Broader efforts to target media companies by Trump, his administration and a Republican-led Congress recently could be harder to unwind.

Congressional PBS, NPR probe: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has called on the CEOs of NPR and PBS to testify at a DOGE subcommittee hearing about what she says is "systemically biased content." It's the first hearing to be announced for the subcommittee. Both broadcasters rely on congressionally appropriated funding to survive.

FCC PBS, NPR probe: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is also investigating the two public broadcasters over whether their member stations violated FCC rules around airing commercial ads. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr implied that the investigation could help influence Congress' funding decision.

FCC Comcast/NBC investigation: Carr informed Comcast he is opening an investigation into the company's diversity, equity and inclusion practices. It marked the first public effort by the new administration to target a private company for its DEI initiatives.

FCC CBS inquiry: Carr opened an inquiry into CBS News to evaluate whether it violated the FCC's news distortion rules when it edited a "60 Minutes" interview with 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris during the campaign. The inquiry adds pressure to CBS, as it considers whether to settle a separate lawsuit filed against it last year by Trump before he took office.

Reality check: A strong U.S. legal and regulatory framework makes it difficult for Trump and his regulators to go after media companies without likely having to defend at least some of their actions in court."---
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/20/trump-m...stigations

"The Trump administration’s roundup of students who protested Israel’s bombardment of Gaza marks an astonishing, radical break with what one might justifiably think of as the central American idea. Immigration agents force a PhD student into an unmarked van in Somerville, Massachusetts, arrest a recent grad in front of his eight-months-pregnant wife in the lobby of a Columbia University-owned building in New York City, seize a Georgetown University postdoc from his home in Washington DC – all, it seems, for their lawful political speech. These are the kinds of scenes we expect to see in the world’s most repressive regimes; it’s genuinely shocking to see them unfolding here.


Thus far the arrests haven’t generated widespread outrage in the United States, perhaps because the students are foreign, or because pro-Palestinian protesters have been vilified by both major political parties, many universities and much of the media.

But an administration that imprisons and expels foreign students for their pro-Palestinian advocacy is unlikely to stop with foreign students or, for that matter, with pro-Palestinian advocacy. Trump’s student roundup has already progressed from visa holders to legal permanent residents, and administration officials have said they intend to come after naturalized citizens as well. And the argument the administration is advancing to justify the cancellation of students’ visas – that the students’ advocacy undermines US foreign policy – could as easily be made with respect to those who advocate in support of any other cause the Trump administration happens to disfavor.

It’s difficult to convey how profoundly these arrests have transformed American universities in just a few weeks. In a legal complaint filed earlier this week, professors describe a “climate of fear and repression” on university campuses across the United States, with international faculty and students stepping back from groups that engage in political advocacy, forgoing opportunities to publish their work, scrubbing their webpages of references that immigration authorities might find provocative, and no longer engaging with political topics on social media or even in private texts. (The case was filed by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association; the Knight First Amendment Institute, which I direct, is counsel.) Many international students and faculty are genuinely terrified that masked government agents might show up on their doorsteps at any moment.


All of this is likely to get worse. The arrests of student protesters are just one manifestation of the Trump administration’s broader campaign against democratic institutions and freedoms. As students are being disappeared into Ice’s detention centers, Trump is speedrunning the rest of the authoritarian playbook – threatening the media, extorting universities, imposing sanctions on lawyers whom the president perceives to be his political enemies, and intimidating judges. If he continues on this path without encountering more resistance than he has encountered thus far, full-fledged authoritarianism is just around the corner.

And yet it may be the arrests of protesters that pose the gravest threat to our fast-fading democracy. Protest has been the engine of social change in this country for many decades, and it is difficult to envision any way for Americans to reclaim their democracy now that doesn’t involve millions of people taking to the streets. The arrests of student dissidents are a warning to anyone who might be tempted to try it: if we can do this to them, we can do it to you too, and we will.

The students are being persecuted for exercising a right that all of us need now more than ever. Come to their defense for this reason, if for no other."----
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...mmigration

You can quote spam all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama has no moral high ground from which to speak.