Hanaguma

Last weekend in Chicago, 8 dead and 27 wounded in shootings.

I agree, the title of the thread is a misnomer. Biden's protection can't be 'back' because it never left. He has always been coddled, even as VP. "Just Joe being Joe", "he's just a gaffe machine", the usual deflections. It is harder to do now, with his shortcomings and health failings becoming more apparent. He has yet to do an interview with any major newspaper. No press conference in nearly 6 months. It couldn't be more obvious.

I think you may have a point. Similar to the 2022 Congressional/Senate election. Democrats supported GOP candidates they thought were extreme, but unelectable. Cynical but effective. I dont want either of them to run again. The Trump years were very good economically- low inflation, cheap gas, cheap flights. But he can't recapture the same unique feeling that he had in 2016.

Joe did well, he has always had a reputation as a gregarious kind of guy. However, the whole, how can I say, existence of a dinner like this is a bit troubling. I prefer the press and the politicans to be adversarial. They should of course be cordial, but not too chummy. Fellow AN members, do these dinners happen in other countries too, or is this an American thing?

...uh, I thought it was obvious that I meant the law being discussed here, the Colorado bills that were just signed...

Not an excuse, and I am not a gun totter. Never owned one in my life, and never plan to. But a valid question. How would the law have prevented any of the crimes in question?

..and what particular part of the Colorado legislation would have stopped this crime, if applied to Texas? For me about the only thing would be enforcing immigration laws, since all concerned are reputed to be illegal immigrants to the US

The "if it saves one life..." argument is a fallacy. You could save tens of thousands of lives by outlawing tobacco. You could save thousands of lives by reducing the maximum speed limit on all roads to 30 miles per hour. Or mandating that all occupants of all vehicles (cars, busses, vans) wear helmets as well as seat belts. But we don't. Because all of life involves trade offs between competing factors. This "one live" argument is simply a form of emotional blackmail.

Anthony McRae.

I agree the issue driving the calls is that of, for want of a better term, spontaneous mass shootings. But they are rare in the big picture. Even if they were to be eliminated completely (an impossible task), there would be no appreciable difference in the overall crime or murder rate. That is why I say that proposals like the ones in Colorado are a waste of time. All they may accomplish is perhaps help the governor get re-elected, or kicked upstairs to Washington.

No straw man, just being practical. If you want to actually save lives, then work on crime in general and gun crime in particular. Not on what happens to be trending in the media. How about these proposals... a/ 10 year mandatory sentence for illegal firearm possession. b/ 10 extra years if it is used in a crime c/ death sentence for murderers and drug dealers d/ mandatory treatment for addicts and mentally incompetent people

I would call less than 1% of all firearms deaths very rare, yes. Reducing crime is indeed possible. Just takes more effort than a throwaway virtue signal.

Mass killings aren't crimes? News to me... I always thought they WERE crimes. Thankfully, very rare crimes, but crimes nonetheless. From what I have read, they only account for less than 1% of gun deaths every year. Perhaps focusing on reducing crime would be a better use of limited government resources and time.

He made a deal with James Clyburn, a powerful Congressman from South Carolina, during the 2016 primaries. Biden was going nowhere, but Clyburn offered his support (he is a revered figure in the black community). In return, Biden pledged to choose a black woman as his VP. Not sure why Harris got the nod- she was a nothing in the primaries, but her relative youth and energy were a good contrast to Biden. So here we are.

...and that will stop gun toting criminals intent on mayhem how, exactly?

Media prep is one thing, collusion is another. Of course politicians get briefed on which reporters to avoid and which ones are 'tame'. Also to always pivot from the question asked to safer ground and a familiar talking point. But the level of scripting and co-operation needed for a circus like the one in the OP is another level altogether. Here is what a staff member would have to do, all before the press event: 1. Find the friendly reporter. 2. Get him/her to agree to ask a specific question. 3. Go to your office. 4. Write AND print out all the details- reporter name, pronunciation, affiliation, question, response needed, AND the order to pick the questions. 5. Deliver said paper to the politician in time for him/her to get familiar with it. This goes way beyond prep into the territory of journalistic malpractice. Any who agree should be ashamed.

Unfortunately for them, the Democrats DO have somebody else lined up. The problem is, that person is the VP Kamala Harris. Given the political situation it would be well nigh impossible to deny her the nomination if Biden were to step aside. And the closer the election gets, the harder it will be. And everyone knows that, in a general election, Harris would lose to a potted plant. Or a potted Trump, let alone a GOP candidate without Trump's baggage.

More popular than Trump? Kinda like winning at the Special Olympics, isn't it? Not exactly an achievement.

Any evidence to support this rather unique theory of jornalistic integrity? Or that other world leaders have pre-printed answers ready-made for them to use in meetings with the press- complete with numbers attached to show the order in which the journalists will be called?

Actually, the President's last press conference was in November last year, just after the mid term elections. So more like 150 days or so. Easy mistake to make with this President though.

Kids, the topic is BIDEN and his cozy relationship with the press. Joe is famous for blurting out "I'll get in trouble" if he dares to speak to reporters too long (which means more than 90 seconds). He has yet to hold a press conference this year. I think he is also the only President to be ordered around by the Easter Bunny, but I could be wrong about that.

It was indeed relevant. Also given to Biden and his staff ahead of time by the reporter. The question is not the issue. The issue is the collusion between the media and the President to present events like this as if they were spontaneous journalism, not kabuki theatre. And their attempts to hide it.

Agreed here too. Ditto for Donna Brazile giving the Clinton campaign pre debate information. Too much of a cozy relationship between the press and the White House in general. If you asked the general public, they would be shocked that these press events are something akin to professional wrestling. Just a performance that is designed to look like a genuine event. I enjoy watching an actual journalist like Matt Lee grill the White House flunkies.

None of that matters. This is a pretty simple question of journalistic ethics. What real journalist worth their salt would voluntarily GIVE THEIR QUESTION to the President's handlers? They should collectively feel ashamed. A preplanned interview is another matter, a one on one situation. But a supposedly spontaneous event like this? If this is just "the done thing", then why is it so carefully hidden? The Washington Post recently had a story saying the same thing- "we are all in on it, c'est la vie". If that is the case, I cannot understand why the reporter in question (works for the LA Times I think) won't confirm the situation.

No.