Can’t afford him going off script again

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
19 points

This isn’t unusual, and I’m pretty tired of this campaign of making everyday and benign occurrences with Biden appear like crises.

Cut it out.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

exactly. Nobody goes into an interview (especially a live interview) without some agreement on what the conversation will cover.

That’s practically asking to get ambushed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

They shouldn’t be doing things that would get them ambushed

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yes. Just hide in the ivory tower. The peasants don’t get a vote, so they don’t really need to be persuaded anyhow.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

“The interview featured pre-determined questions provided by the White House, which violates our practice of remaining an independent media outlet accountable to our listeners. As a result, Ms. Lawful-Sanders and WURD Radio have mutually agreed to part ways, effective immediately,” the station said in a statement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

It is usually the other way around, the interviewer may provide a list of the questions, not the other way around.

They didn’t want Biden speaking off script, it’s a big enough train wreck on one.

And if you don’t like it you should have pushed your party to primary him, this is the Biden they’ve known about for years.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 331K

    Comments