Yes. Enough people voted for Trump to elect hm President, didn’t they? Nearly everyone I have vote for in state and local elections have gotten elected, for years. So Yes. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize other views as legitimately held, even if wrong.
not surprising though.
Not all views deserve to be treated as legitimate.
Only 26% of eligible voters voted for Trump and I can guarantee you that almost everyone between the age of 15 to 18 wouldn’t have voted for him. Trump benefits from a lazy liberal electorate and a suspect geographical advantage. He didn’t win by having popular or even widely held views.
You believe that, don’t you?
Trump’s EPA is hurting the very people that put him in office. Like in Alabama…
And ordinary people like this couple are trying to fight coal ash dumps…
If you know you have x amount of seats. and you have y amount of RSVP’s. You would limit the number of others allowed in. News media was only their to cover, not participate. So it’s not outside of reason they would allocate only a certain number of seats to the media.
This is typical liberal “half truth” reporting, also known as fake news! And there is nothing wrong with having to use rough tactics for the pushy press hacks who think they can bend the rules and show up late.
Is that what happened or are you adding things that are not yet in evidence?
Jumping in the way back machine (talking 20(ish) years ago). Got wind that there was going to be an “exercise”. Pretend a tanker carry hazmat hit a school bus. I showed up to do a news story on it for the radio station I worked at. FEMA guy pulls the sheriff over, asks how he thinks his guys would react to an over zealous reporter.
Oh man did I have fun after that. Even ended up in handcuffs in the back of a police cruiser. Fun times.
Don’t know what happend. Just as YOU don’t know what happened other than some poor news media were told they couldn’t go in and they got pissed off.
Then why do you speak as if you do?
It’s in the article. The media was TOLD they would have limited seating and only a certain number would be let in.
If your NOT one of the chosen ones (hehe like that hehe) then you don’t get all pissy and try and go in anyway, then tell them you’ll do a negative hit piece if they don’t let you in.
What’s in the article is what the EPA spokesperson SAID about it. You may choose to believe that. Is this standard operating procedure for these types of events? I doubt it. Would you be as cheerful if Fox/Breitbart had been rebuffed?
Media was there covering the event. That’s all that really matters.
Those not allowed in could watch a live stream that was set up. And yes I’ll believe the EPA spokesman until proven otherwise.
Now your proof otherwise is?
Maybe you should grow up before you become the arbiter of who’s ideas are legitimate.
Age doesn’t earn you respect. Most of the despicable people who hold despicable views are older than me. Like the pro-confederates.
I know you’re tickled pink about this, but you shouldn’t be.
The key is “Wilcox alleged.” A reporter does not threaten “negative coverage.” Wilcox was lying. The bigger question is why the EPA chose to bar CNN, the AP and E&E. Especially E&E. It was a political move.
So they say the room reached its capacity? ■■■■■■■■■