It's been 461 days since Trump held a press conference?

[GMDino]

Seems like he is always on yelling answers at people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/trumps-last-press-conference/2140/

Is there an official definition?

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/22/trump-held-only-one-press-conference-year-his-predecessors-had-way-more/976675001/

Quote:President Trump has only had one official solo press conference in his first year in office – far fewer than any of his modern predecessors. 

The nonprofit American Presidency Project, which collects data on presidential press conferences dating back to the Nixon administration, noted the single press conference, which took place on Feb. 16.


Comparably, Barack Obama held seven in his first year in office, while George W. Bush held four.


Here's how everyone else stacked up during their first years in office:

• Bill Clinton: 11
• George H. W. Bush: 27
• Ronald Reagan: 6
• Jimmy Carter: 22
• Gerald Ford (who only served from August to December in his first year as president): 4
• Richard Nixon: 6
  

This is not to say Trump has addressed the press only once. He often answers questions from reporters in the "pool," a rotation of reporters who follow the president's movements and send the information out to the rest of the press corps. But that is different than a formal press conference, which provide an opportunity for the broader White House press corps to ask their questions.
[/url]
In addition to his lack of press conferences, Trump is now the first president in 15 years not to hold an end-of-the-year presser, often used to tout major victories from the year.

The end-of-the-year press conference, done right before presidents head out of town for the holidays, have been a tradition, though not a requirement, since the 1970s, [url=http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/22/media/president-trump-no-press-conference/index.html]according to CNN.


The last time a president to skip was George W. Bush, who didn't hold end-of-the-year pressers in 2001 and 2002, at the start of his presidency. 
He started in 2003, and they've consistently happened ever since, including through the entirety of the Obama administration.

Others who have skipped in recent years past: Clinton and George H. W. Bush, both of whom didn't hold one in 1992 and 2000, each of their last years in office.


At his only formal press conference as president, just weeks after he took office,Trump appeared to enjoy attacking what he called the "fake news." 



"Tomorrow, they will say, 'Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.' I'm not ranting and raving. I'm just telling you. You know, you're dishonest people," Trump said then. "But I'm not ranting and raving. I love this. I'm having a good time doing it." 

He probably thinks it makes him look smart for avoiding the "fake news", but I think it makes him look weak for not facing the press.

[*michaelsean*]

Quote:In addition to his lack of press conferences, Trump is now the first president in 15 years not to hold an end-of-the-year presser, often used to tout major victories from the year.

Sometimes his modesty gets the best of him.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I wonder how the numbers of previous Presidents would have been changed if Twitter was a thing, and had been a thing for over a decade when they took office.

Will be interesting to see how the next couple of Presidents handle it. Press conferences are less needed when anything you tweet directly goes to over 50m people and instantly gets disseminated across the internet.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 05:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I wonder how the numbers of previous Presidents would have been changed if Twitter was a thing, and had been a thing for over a decade when they took office.

Will be interesting to see how the next couple of Presidents handle it. Press conferences are less needed when anything you tweet directly goes to over 50m people and instantly gets disseminated across the internet.

Wish I could find the video, but just yesterday a Facebook memory popped up where I commented on watching Fox & Friends 

Quote:I never watch the news...especially in the morning.


30 seconds of CBS and I heard about Thailand's coup and a girl escaping from captivity after 10 years along with a report on the problem with the VA.

30 seconds of FOX & Friends and I heard the President didn't answer a question so he must be afraid to take questions in case he doesn't know the answer and he should fire people who mess up even if they are good people or he's not a good leader.

No wonder some people don't know anything these days. There is no separation if news and opinion.

That was 2014!  LMAO!

Anyway taking questions and answering them (to me) is still better than ranting tweeting statements with no one to question or challenge them directly.

[fredtoast]

He has to ignore the press. He has painted them as liars who do not deserve to talk to him.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 05:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I wonder how the numbers of previous Presidents would have been changed if Twitter was a thing, and had been a thing for over a decade when they took office.

Will be interesting to see how the next couple of Presidents handle it. Press conferences are less needed when anything you tweet directly goes to over 50m people and instantly gets disseminated across the internet.

I don't think twitter is the reason.  Instead it is all about painting the press as an "enemy of the State".  Since they are against him he is not going to talk to them.

Kind of like the way previous Presidents would not even sit and talk with NK because it would "legitimize" them.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-23-2018, 07:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think twitter is the reason.  Instead it is all about painting the press as an "enemy of the State".  Since they are against him he is not going to talk to them.

Kind of like the way previous Presidents would not even sit and talk with NK because it would "legitimize" them.

When a rogue Nation like NK has nuclear weapons, and is firing off rockets landing on your ally's doorstep (Japan), it kind of makes them legitimate on their own merit.  At least he didn't throw money at them, like Clinton..

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 09:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: When a rogue Nation like NK has nuclear weapons, and is firing off rockets landing on your ally's doorstep (Japan), it kind of makes them legitimate on their own merit.  At least he didn't throw money at them, like Clinton..

When you negotiate you have to give up something.

What do you suggest we do?  start lining them up and nuking them?  Who gets it first NK or Iran?  Then who is next?

[SunsetBengal]

(05-23-2018, 11:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When you negotiate you have to give up something.

What do you suggest we do?  start lining them up and nuking them?  Who gets it first NK or Iran?  Then who is next?

Well, allowing them to continue breathing is a great opener.

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2018, 05:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I wonder how the numbers of previous Presidents would have been changed if Twitter was a thing, and had been a thing for over a decade when they took office.

I think it's a personality thing rather than a technology thing. It's like how Trump still holds these campaign rallies, something that has been in politics for a very long time, whereas previous Presidents didn't.

He prefers outlets where it is just him saying whatever is on his mind without any immediate criticism or questioning of it, whether it is twitter, a rally, or a letter to the editor "written" by him "his secretary".

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 11:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, allowing them to continue breathing is a great opener.

That is exactly what I said.

Just bomb every country that doesn't do what we want.  Not when they attack us, but just when they refuse to do what we want.

You don't see any possible problems with a policy like that?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-24-2018, 08:07 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think it's a personality thing rather than a technology thing. It's like how Trump still holds these campaign rallies, something that has been in politics for a very long time, whereas previous Presidents didn't.

He prefers outlets where it is just him saying whatever is on his mind without any immediate criticism or questioning of it, whether it is twitter, a rally, or a letter to the editor "written" by him "his secretary".

Most likely, but it'll still bear watching in the future. It's been done now, so a precedent has been set. Not to mention that in previous elections there wasn't quite any social media geared towards throwing your opinion out to quite so many people. When Obama first won, Twitter was less than 2 years old and nothing like it is today as far as scale goes.

Maybe when TV news started becoming more prominent, people were like "it's been 500 days since so-and-so wrote an open letter in the New York Post" or something, as they chose to get their message out in video and audio form instead.

I am sure the first President to decide to do the State of the Union address on TV (Lyndon B Johnson in 1965 according to my Googling) had people wondering the same thing.

Not saying that a move to Social Media is a change for the good, just saying it'll be intriguing to see if it is something the future Presidents also use, and how they will use it. Keep in mind the Clinton campaign also used social media a decent amount, just more officially than personally. So it's likely something that can't be fully neglected anymore.