I'm starting to see some actual strategy in President Trump's madness, particularly his approach to the press. I don't think he really cares that much about what questions CNN reporters ask, but by making a constant, big deal out of CNN (whose approach to the news I frankly, even as a liberal, don't like) and its reporting, refocuses a lot of their coverage on him, puts his name in their news all the time, and creates an easy enemy that he and his supporters can focus their rage on (deserved or not).
I think it allows him to pivot from subjects he doesn't want to talk about and allows him to control the media narrative.
I really have a newly found respect for how he manipulates the press. It's been going on for several years now, so I don't think it's an accident.
Acosta brought this on himself with his physical aggression toward the intern. He is using chatter about issues related to the incident to distract from the fact that he was physically aggressive against the young woman. In self-defense she backed down so he thinks that should be the end of it. Victims know that this is how aggressors begin and that if allowed to continue the end is much rougher and often deadly.
This guy would never let go of of an incident like the one he committed against the girl trying to do her job if a Republican had done such a thing. For his own good and for the safety of others he should not get by with thinking the rules are different for him. That society is divided on whether his push matters is serious business. That women who claim to want women to be safer are willing to dismiss it is incredible.
The President absolutely will be vindicated in his actions simply based on the fact that Acosta wasn't removed for his politics, his words, or any "speech" related item - he was removed for his conduct. In this era of women's rights, I find it funny that no women's group came out to support the young lady who had to endure his antics.
It's almost as if women's rights groups are not for women's rights at all, but are an extremist anti-American left wing agenda group.
What conduct? He barely made contact with the woman and appears he was just reacting to her making contact with him.
He was clearly barred for asking questions Trump doesn’t like or just to create a story.
What video are you watching?
The one where he gave a speech, refused to give up the mic and touched (assaulted) an aide.
He touched her. You believe he assaulted her?
You know, after rewatching the video, I agree with you. In fact, I think he was trying to rape her.
*shrug* Legally, touching someone without permission is battery at a minimum and possibly assault. He wants to take the thing to court, be prepared for legal definitions to be used.
It is neither battery nor assault. It's a misdemeanor. I forget what it is called, but I was the foreman in a trial where something more significant than this happened and the guy was found guilty and everyone involved went through some collaborative justice.
Assuming the woman wanted to pursue charges, Acosta might be found guilty, though he would probably say it was accidental. Under normal circumstances, such a thing would be dismissed.
Battery and assault, whatever you call it, is all determined by the jurisdiction where the files are charged. No, he wouldn't be found guilty unless the criminal president puts the fix in...after all, he did say the election was fixed...and he won.
Protocol is you get a question and, time permitting, possibly a follow up. Acosta was disrespectful to all parties, including other reporters courteously waiting their turn with the mike.
What did the woman endure?
Do you think if Acosta were nominated for the Supreme Court that this action should keep him off?
Crankalicious, I believe you are right. President Donald Trump knows how to control the news cycle. He's been doing it for years. Just look at how much time has been given on this thread and other threads concerning him. Jim Acosta broke an unwritten journalistic rule...he made the story about himself. He didn't do his job, he created news about himself. Those that are respectful to President Donald Trump are not treated this way. The lawsuit can be easily categorized as "frivolous" and its only intent is to get attention. No reporter is entitled to be at the White House. A press pass is a privilege. I've gotten them for events. I have seen them taken from reporters as well. He didn't ban CNN, he banned an individual because or rude and ignorant behavior. So, the more we talk about it, the more we play into President Donald Trump's hand. Yeah, kind of brilliant.
So why couldn't CNN figure that out , they stand to lose the most and actually have , Trumps brilliance in manipulating the media is just that , one more Trump card so to speak . When the first amendment is so abused by the media itself what do we as Americans expect ?
Send a donation to CNN Today !............;-]
They may have figured it out. Maybe not. One has to wonder whether or not they're fully partnered with Trump in this cycle because they're making so much money by creating this relationship.
I think you ask a valid question. I also think getting a honest answer to it would be almost impossible.
Usually the obvious answer is the right one. In this case, CNN realizes that by being Trump antagonists, they are making tons of money. They also feel that they are on the side of truth, so it's a win-win for them.
However, while I read CNN and generally believe their liberal slant, I am frustrated by their bias. I wish they'd just report the news, leave the editorializing out of every story they produce, and just give me the news.
Unfortunately, readers mostly want their opinions validated.
I also see too much liberal slant from CNN and too much Trump/conservative slant from FOX. But, I don't see CNN straight making things up so much like FOX.
However, all these memes reminiscing about the days when reporters simply reported and didn't offer opinions, just don't ring true for me. At least in the post Cronkite Vietnam analysis days.
This famous Cronkite quote is opinion: "“To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that were are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.”"
I think the issue with the news today is there are just more opinions due to the constant 24 hour news. Journalists have always had opinions and they have that right to those opinions. The thing is, when Cronkite said, "and that’s the way it is" well..that's the way it was. There was no reason for him to dispute other news agencies take on the facts.
It's up to the public to be educated and aware enough to know the difference between fact and opinion.
The thing I'm writing about directly concerns news stories. There are no news stories anymore. It's more like there is news in opinion pieces. Even when CNN is simply reporting a story, they seem to provide opinion and use negative language about Trump that is just unnecessary.
I agree we need more actual news stories..just the facts and only the facts.
As far as negative language toward Trump, he is the President and he sets the tone. If he were to offer ANY kind of olive branch my guess is his treatment in the media would be much better. However, that is not what Trump wants and needs. His base feeds off the victim role and he needs the media as the enemy narrative to keep them motivated.
I wish the media would just stop focusing on Trump so much period.
The negative language is fine in an opinion piece. I don't need it in a simple news story.
And we agree on your last sentence, but I think it makes them a lot of money. What I think needs to happen is they need to develop a whole new approach to Trump. I've seen this recommended already, but delay his news conferences by ten minutes. Fact check him in a bar that runs continuously at the bottom of the screen. Stuff like that.
Yes, agreed on the new approach. As long as it still makes them cash it should work out for them..that's what it's all about of course.
I think a negative tone, even in simple news stories, may just be impossible for many in the media after being called the enemy of the people so many times. But, yes, also agree it would be better to eliminate that tone and think outside the box a bit with Trump.
They don't even need to take an openly hostile tone with him, but they could literally have a separate channel that fact checks him all day.
That said, they can do it during their regular programming and simply provide solid evidence for obvious falsehoods.
I don't like how they currently fact check him. I think the column is always something like "The 63 most Outrageous Things Trump Said During His Fox News Interview" or something like that. I suggest anyone read that column. It's horrible journalism. It's filled with innuendo and lots of vague rebuttals. I hate it. Just keep to the facts. Provide easy, factual rebuttals with supporting documentation.
I think when CNN is nasty, it just produces more readers, even among people who don't like CNN.
"I think when CNN is nasty, it just produces more readers, even among people who don't like CNN."
Truer words could not have been said. One has only to look at the vitriol on social media to get a handle on what people want to see/hear. CNN but plays to that desire.
What does it say about the people consuming that stuff? CNN operates in the free market and their news delivery caters to what produces revenue for them.
We actually seem to be saying that most of us don't want "just facts". We want fighting, vitriol, and nastiness. We want to everyone to mark their territory and fight it out. The news is like professional wrestling now.
"If he were to offer ANY kind of olive branch my guess is his treatment in the media would be much better."
LOL I watched the press release where Acosta made his play. Trump was most reasonable and quiet...that olive branch...right up until attacked by Acosta. No, the media won't change - it's what sells viewership.
Being quiet for a few seconds is now an olive branch..ok then.
Being asked a hard question when you're POTUS is not "being attacked" in any context. Acosta was doing his job. Trump overreacted in the extreme.
That said, I think it's Acosta's job to ask a question, not to provide commentary. so I think Acosta is at fault for trying to refute the "invasion" characterization. He should have just asked a question that addressed the issue and left it at that. I think how Acosta handled that whole exchange shows how CNN doesn't understand how Trump thinks. Trump uses stuff like that for his benefit. Are we being invaded? No, we're not, but Trump is describing the totality of illegal immigration by using one example and that's his meaning. Acosta is quibbling over Trump's larger point. I think Trump could probably explain that to him, but then Trump would lose the value of the conflict and the victimization he uses to his benefit.
Is it important to refute Trump's various incendiary statements? Yes, I think it is, but not in that particular context. The emotional value Trump gets out of those moments is high.
Acosta called Trump a liar. That is not a hard question; it is not a question at all. He refused to give up the mic, grabbing it away from the aide sent to retrieve it, and THAT is not a hard question, either.
No, we are not being invaded (by the caravan; we certainly ARE by tens of thousands of border sneaks). Because we are refusing, at this point, to let them in. Should they come anyway, it is an invasion by any definition of the term.
So arguing over what constitutes an invasion is not just silly; it is stupid as well, for any writer already knows the answer.
I didn't hear Acosta call Trump a liar. Challenging somebody on a demonstrably false statement is a fair thing to do. We could talk about the frequency of Trump's lies, but that seems beside the point.
Acosta asked his question. Trump said he thought it was an invasion. Asked and answered. I think it was stupid of Acosta to argue because it's what Trump wants him to do.
A few thousand people coming into our country is not an invasion, but I understand the term is being used loosely and for maximum effect. In fact, all of illegal immigration is not an invasion. It's more of an assimilation, frankly. Kind of like the Borg in Star Trek. We're the Borg.
I think it's incumbent on CNN and Acosta to ask better questions that make Trump look stupid, if that's what they're going for.
This little dust-up benefits CNN just as much as Trump.
Also, fighting with the press is what Trump's supporters like about him. Frankly, I kind of like that about him. Why should he stand up there and not fight for what he believes? He should and he does. That's fine. But if he wants to fight, he shouldn't back down like a wimp when somebody wants to go toe to toe with him.
"Kind of like the Borg in Star Trek. We're the Borg."
No we're not. The Borg chose to assimilate others. That's the difference between assimilation and invasion - we don't get to choose and that makes it an invasion. Even if illegals were all assimilated rather than bringing their culture with them, it is still an invasion because they are not wanted.
I'll trade the white junkies for the hard-working "invaders." If we are picking and choosing who we want, let's base it on merit.
Now all you have to do is figure out how to convince all the drug dealers (let's not limit it to a specific race) to Mexico and we're in business.
Plus, of course, arrange for the illegals to already know English and already have an education commensurate with their age.
"...they are not wanted."
Absolute BS. You want them. You want them to clean your hotel rooms, pick your strawberries, cook your food, bus your tables, so that you can have lower prices.
This might flow into your narrative about differences between rural and urban citizens. Where you are, you have less contact with immigrants I'm guessing, which makes your whole panic about them interesting.
Obviously, you're right about the choice of assimilation, but one of the main global criticisms of American capitalism is how it does precisely what I'm saying. Regardless of whether we choose to or not, our way of life and our economic system devours almost everything it touches (this is why Islamic extremists hate us), for good and bad. Sure, immigrants bring their culture, but it's ultimately swallowed by the American way of life. Christianity is the best example of this. American Christians like to think of themselves as Christians, but American Christianity is really its own brand of Christianity because it's been assimilated by our economic system.
And I really should say "we" not "you" with regard to the picking strawberries comment. I don't want my strawberries to be $15/pound either.
It was his conduct that was used as cause to revoke Jim Acosta's press pass. The tape shows Jim being uncooperative and refusing to relinquish the microphone. I guess it will depend on the judge's opinion on the conduct. Not sure they have a case going the route of his free speech being silenced. he certainly was given a chance to ask a question and be heard. As did Trump have the right not to answer his question due to the same right... Freedom of speech. Looks like a draw.
So Acosta isn't a journalist. He's a pundit. But, no matter his antics I think you may be right. Had I been president I wouldn't have banned him. I'd let him walk right in, sit down, and never call on him again. Trump does seem to have a knack for keeping the conversation on himself.
Dr. Evil's nefarious plot exposed by crankilicious. Very impressive.
I really wasn’t being sarcastic. I think Trump is manipulating CNN and they are playing into it. CNN is looking increasingly stupid in their exchange.
Jim Acosta and so CNN made the ultimate "journalist's" mistake , probably given his awe of setting foot in the "House of the People ", He began to think of himself as THE white house press core !
Good riddance .
Acosta and CNN are now suing the President and several White House officials, claiming violation of the First (free speech)'and Fifth (due process) Amendments.
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/13/66742553 … redentials
I don't see how his free speech has been affected at all. Acosta can stand out on the street corner and make his speeches and scream out questions all day and night if he wishes to.
One the other hand, he could be re-instated...and never called on to ask a question.
Not being a constitutional scholar, but offering my uneducated opinion anyway, I think the due process argument is more compelling.
I don't know (not being a constitutional scholar either), but:
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
He hasn't been deprived of his life or his property. No one has unlimited liberty to waltz into the white house and make speeches or ask questions of the president, so he had nothing to lose there, either. He did lose his pass which granted him limited, temporary access at the president's discretion, but I don't see that covered in the amendment. If nothing else, we all can lose our liberty to occupy a business, home or govt. office on misbehavior.
When right wing crazy fox nut Andrew Napolitano 'flips' on you, you're in DEEP Trouble:
An interesting take, but one which ignores Acosta's behavior in refusing to return the mic, and his assault on the aide.
Were I Trump, that would be the reason given for banning him, not the question he asked.
I would also, in the future, have spare mics available and someone primed to turn any one of them off at a moment's notice.
lol: There was no 'assault' on the poor little snowflake conservative staffer and everyone knows that, and holding on to a mic to complete your question before it's yanked from your hand is not a crime to my knowledge, and it's NO VALID reason for Bozo Trump to commit a federal crime by violating Jim Acosta's 1st Amendment right but what else is new about Donald breaking laws and getting away with it to this point?:
Jim will be reinstated soon because this land to my knowledge, has not yet converted over completely to the "Divided States of Russia" although now, in the era of trump, Vladimir Putin and his stooges are making great strides toward that ultimate goal:
Wilderness, Do you really believe, by a reasonable interpretation of the charge, he assaulted the Aide?
Obviously I don't, and because I don't - I read something else into the purpose of those that do.
Hey GA, today in court Trump's lawyers didn't even mention the assault charge. It seems they dropped the ridiculous charge as they should have.
I do not.
However, the letter of the law is somewhat different: I once watched a man charged, and convicted, of battery because he walked through a fly swatter held out by a store clerk in front of him. The fly swatter was an "extension of the clerk", and he touched it without permission as he simply walked, pushing it aside with his chest as he did so: battery.
Our laws do not always make sense, and I believe that many of them are enacted simply to make it possible to convict a person of something when the charge preferred is not provable. Or perhaps to make a plea bargain more appealing. This is one of them.
But if that were the case, then Acosta would be the victim. The mic would be the extension, which the aide forcefully grab.
So, people that don't like him and are pushing and/or accusing him of assault should be careful what they wish for.
Btw, I agree with GA. It was an incidental contact.
That's how I thought you meant it bud. I agree, technically the claim might be made, but ...
We aren't approaching this with reasonable standards. By those, of course he didn't. But by the standards of today? I don't know. We've got people being accused of rape who never even met a woman so, maybe he did?
In no court would he ever be convicted, or likely even tried on assault here. That's just's insane.
alright Live to learn, alright. I didn't anticipate that segue ...
Yes, indeed, the standards of today do dismiss reasonable standards.
PP: Bozo Trump will LOSE the law suit for recklessly violating our constitution which is a federal crime just like he LOST the midterm elections in a BIG Dramatic way and he's still losing as all the votes are being counted:
His latest episode of insanity is just one more of a nearly infinite number of reasons why he needs to be removed ASAP before ALL of the USA is lost in a big heap of Trump rumble which is actually what his last remaining followers obviously want:
You don't have over 500 businesses earthshining all day, you have that much going on by being a Trump. You don't beat out everything the GOP and the DNC had to offer by being stupid, you beat that by being extremely aware of what is really going on, and by that I mean what the people who don't trust mass media, the wisest persons, actually think.
Reading Mother Jones and CNN will never get you any kind of understanding of what rural people think about things.
Mother Jones and CNN are only a fraction of the VALID Legitimate Sources I read and watch Wesman and maybe they won't get me connected to rural people and maybe they will, but it will definitely help us Progressive Dems WIN many more elections going forward:
If rural folks in say Kentucky prefer to live in extreme poverty while their republican senators Mitch McConnell and space man Rand Paul continue to pillage them and give their riches to the wealthiest in their state then so be it, the rest of the USA which is demanding more equality in wealth distribution, will simply move forward and progress without them:
Mother Jones and CNN are only a fraction of the WACKED OUT Sources you read and watch Jake and certainly they won't get you connected to reality, but it will definitely help you strive towards pushing vile far left policies down the collective American Throat.
Trump needs a "brilliant gambit" to deal with Mueller. The twitter rage isn't working so well at distracting from that pesky collusion and obstruction thing. Maybe it's cause he knows he has not good way out of this.
Even if the Acosta thing is a distraction, if the white house is on the wrong side of the judges ruling, I don't think it's a brilliant move at all.
Why is it so hard for democrats to recognise political savvy instead of political correctness ? Because they dumbed themselves down so badly under the Obama /Clinton/ Kerry regime that they cannot recognize the mental and corporate exercises Trump uses to manipulate that P.C. mentality .
It's called using your enemies weakness' against them .
And it's not even a political brilliance .
Oh yeah, Americans are the Presidents' enemies...silly me. That didn't work out so well in the mid terms. I don't think it's going to work out moving forward either.
"the mid terms ".....You mean the ones where you gained less seats than the opposition under Clinton ,Bush , Obama by percentages ? The left HAS become not only Trumps enemy but the right's too, remember , it is YOUR party that declared war against the US constitution and so the rule of law .
Actually, the Republicans gained seats in the Senate and lost half as many seats in the house as the democrats did in Obama's mid term. Sounds like it worked out ok.
CNN at the bottom of the ratings could use a Cronkite lesson or three . It's called ethics and accuracy in the news media . Go find some or go downhill further .
Old folks still watch cable TV..Old folks watch Fox. Younger folks don't watch TV news much so that explains ratings and the midterms. I don't watch any TV beyond streaming.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … -watch-tv/
Nielsen is just about to start even getting any data from streaming sources, but that doesn't even account for the fact that the younger population gets most of its news from websites.
Presumably you've noticed that most of the right-wing drivel in these forums is coming from old, white retired guys who define the "get off my lawn" attitude of numerous stand up jokes.
As I age, I do appreciate the attitude though. I worked my entire life. I earned what I have. I don't want people to take away what I have. And I don't really want to pay for others to do nothing. I totally get that attitude.
Personally, I think that's one reason so many university students are liberal: they have never earned by the sweat of their brow, what they have; instead it was given to them. As a result it has no real value to them and they don't have a problem giving it away.
like you, though, I have struggled for 50+ years to accumulate the small bit of wealth that I have and have zero desire to give it to someone that wants to float through life without hardship or effort.
"I think that's one reason so many university students are liberal: they have never earned by the sweat of their brow,"
I think you confuse university students with privileged kids. Some college kids are privileged, most are not. I went to university and I can guarantee I earned everything I have and was about as far from privileged as you can get.
In this case, "privileged" means getting subsidized loans instead of living in a one room "apartment" and working through college. Free money, at least at that time.
I'm with you - I worked my way through and came out owing $500. The cost of one semester's tuition. Now they come out owing $50,000.
Yeah, but then they don't feel very privileged when reality sets in and they start paying those loans back, or getting credit destroyed, etc. when they don't.
I agree that there is a sort of entitlement for some but the younger generation doesn't have it so easy.
Except that now there are demands for either zero interest or simply forgiving the loan entirely.
You and I worked our way through school, and it can still be done. It just can't be done eating out every other night, hitting the bars twice a week and generally living high. It requires a definite sacrifice to come out of college owing nothing (unless you were privileged enough to get grants), and few young today are willing to do that.
My kids, so far, earned full academic scholarships..grants only require meeting income requirements and getting into school, and, of course, keeping up the grades once in school. But, I still don't think any kids are getting four year degrees entirely paid for with grants.
This is where the middle class gets screwed though as they are not often eligible for the grants, so the kids must work harder to get scholarships. And, believe me, they work VERY hard...and they generally vote Democrat..OMG!
Yes, there are some demands..some of which I think go too far, but that doesn't mean all youngsters are priviledged nowadays. Times they are a changin.
I should have included scholarships with grants as the result of either is the same.
Yes, the "privileges" are primarily going to those in poverty so that there is no need of any real effort, while those with just a little more are left on their own for the most part.
But how you get them is very different. I see some kids today working harder than they ever did when we were young. Too hard IMO..to the point of losing out on some of their childhoods because their taking extra courses, taking upon that one last club leadership position, lettering in two sports, working a part time job, all to earn their schooling.
I think there are two kinds of old people with regard to how they view their lives and the lives of others. The ones who remember and appreciate the many ways they were helped along the way and the role that luck and inherited opportunity played in their successes; and the ones who either forgot or never acknowledged or believed that luck or inherited opportunities or help had anything to do with what they achieved. The first views those who are less successful than them with a compassionate eye, while the latter view others as simply unwilling to do the work to succeed. The truth generally lies somewhere in between, I guess, but whatever the truth, these angry old farts seem like very unhappy people to me.
You forgot a third group that believes they are entitled, that the world owes them something because they exist.
I don't know anyone like that, though I'm sure they exist. You must live in a different world than I do.
I probably do. A world of blue collar workers, a world of people far removed from big cities, a world of people that very often have no means and a world of people that very often make very poor decisions.
And above all a world of reality rather than dreams of utopia. The current mantra that free health care is a "human right" somehow, simply because the speaker exists and lives. Or free secondary education or free housing or free food...the list is endless of things people think they have a right to because they are alive.
LOL,I grew up in a small town of about 2000. I moved back here four years ago, because my parents needed help. It's now a population of a little over 5,000. I grew up in a blue collar home. Dad was a maintenance worker for the school district; mom was a cook. My three brothers all worked at the local lumber mill, two of them their entire working lives. My other brother became an attorney. He paid for it with scholarships and working at the lumber mill during the summer. I put myself through college with scholarships and part-time secretarial jobs. I took two years off in the middle to work full time to earn more money to finish college.
So, how is it we have such disparate views of the world? Our brains are probably hardwired differently. Yes, I worked hard, but I also had help in the form of teachers going that extra mile for me, wealthy people setting up foundations to give scholarships, bosses who gave me flexibility when I needed it, parents who were honest, steadfast, compassionate and ready to help every step of the way.
I had friends whose parents never asked them if they did their homework, much less help them with it, who had learning disabilities that were not recognized until it was too late, who went home to parents passed out from drinking, who ate out of cereal boxes because their parents didn't cook, and more. I was born to the lower middle class, but I had parents who sacrificed to help their kids; helped with homework; cooked three square meals; took us to sports and band practice. Not everyone has that. Not everyone has loving, intelligent guidance from a caring adult. There are so many variables that shape a person, and I can't understand how anyone can judge another for being less successful when they have no idea what has transpired in their life.
I guess the difference is that I believe people are responsible for themselves. That whether they had a good homelife or bad, they are still responsible for their actions.
Yes, of course they are. Did I say they weren't?
Then why are there requirements for someone else to pay the cost of irresponsible actions?
This!!! Without all those willing to sacrifice for you, and others, we suffer as a people. When people think only of themselves, we end up with third world countries. We all reap the benefits of a helping hand and none of us live in a bubble...not even the unibomber who relied on the post office to deliver his evil.
And, some people don't have any type of inheritance or any dad, uncle, etc. to hand them a decent job, etc. These types of things have nothing to do with personal responsibility. If we level the playing field even a little, we increase the chances that we will find cures for ailments and all the ills that society has always had. That is progress.
I think it is a fundamental difference in how we look at things. Also, despite experiences seeming the same, when we look at them at a more service level...dig a little deeper and I think we find the differences in our experiences.
Are you under the delusion that "All men are created equal and if they're not we can MAKE them equal"?
Life isn't fair. That is not an excuse to demand that someone else pave your way to success. When "leveling the playing field" means cutting the legs of someone so they are no taller than you are it helps no one.
Um, no, not at all. You pulled one sentence out and ran all over the place with it because it suits your narrative of who you think I am, or should be. Note, I stated without all those willing to make sacrifices. Did I say I demanded anything from anyone?
Slow down, you know these things are much more nuanced and then you oversimplify someone else's opinion in order to fuel a boogeyman theory that keeps you going. There, that's my analysis, lol. You just seem really quick to fall back upon a preset notion of how you think other people think, as though we all fall into neat little boxes. I attempt to give you more credit than that.
Life isn't fair, no crap. You wanna compare notes on that?
Thank you for recognizing he does this! He takes your position and repaints it to be more extreme or slightly different to make it easier to argue against. He does this to me all the timr!
YW. It seems all in an attempt to win an argument as opposed to have a discussion and truly learn where others are coming from. Of course, I can fall into the winning the argument thing, but I think it's a particular brand of dishonest debating that was started by right wing media (Fox, Limbaugh, etc.) and then picked up by the left wing in an attempt to fight fire with fire.
Then I missed your point entirely (what a surprise! That just never happens, does it?), for it sounded very much like your concept is to chop the privileged down to the size of the under-privileged.
Want to try again? Re-reading your post, it still sounds like that to me. Not getting it, I guess.
Yes. It is impossible to accurately judge another person's life from the outside looking in.
That's why it pisses me off to see someone judged for using SNAP in a supermarket. I've been there, and, if you don't know me, you have no idea how I ended up there, or maybe even what was taken from me, to put me there. The same goes for everyone.
Everyone should contribute and use the system as it is laid out for them. After all, the wealthy certainly use the system...isn't that what a system is made to do, to be used? If it's not used, according to the law, the entire economy suffers.
Could you imagine the son of a wealthy executive turning down all help, financial or otherwise from his parents. Turn down that plush season NFL tickets or golf club membership because they felt they didn't earn it? I don't think they should have to. I also don't think they should feel guilty for taking those offers any more than someone who may have been kicked around by the system a bit, or even not kicked around so much, should feel guilty for getting a little assistance. That is, as long as the effort to contribute is there. Those efforts come in MANY forms.
OK way off topic, apologies.
Good points. Yeah, my step dad was a green beret, 72 year old "redneck." He hated Trump. He definitely worked for everything he had, both of his parents died before he was 14, and he voted for Obama twice. And, Obama took nothing from him, but helped ensure his children had healthcare.
No one knows the situation of anyone unless they know them very very well. We can't condemn anyone for getting assistance, etc. unless we want to consider the entire picture. My step dad understood this, and I think he was truly happy for many reasons.
I also think there are some "old farts" on both sides of the coin.
Sure, not many people want anyone to take what they have..I'm not too young myself.
Judge orders White House to reinstate Acosta's press credentials
A federal district judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to reinstate press credentials for Jim Acosta, CNN's chief White House correspondent.
U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed to the bench by President Trump, granted CNN’s request to restore the press pass for Acosta, giving him regular access to the White House grounds to cover events and press conferences.
"I want to emphasize the very limited nature of this ruling," Kelly said Friday in granting the temporary restraining order in favor of CNN.
He did not rule on whether the administration's decision to revoke Acosta's press pass violated the First Amendment rights of CNN and Acosta. Instead, Kelly said that Acosta and his employer have shown that they are likely to succeed in their argument that their Fifth Amendment rights to due process were violated by the White House.
Kelly ruled on Friday that Acosta has already suffered harm from not being able to cover the White House in the time since his press credentials were revoked. The judge said that sending another reporter with a hard pass does not make the harm to Acosta any less irreparable.
Kelly asked during Wednesday’s hearing if there was a less-restrictive way that the White House could have reprimanded Acosta, perhaps by letting him keep his pass while prohibited him from attending press conferences.
Boutrous said that is a possibility.
“Rudeness is not a standard,” he said. “If it were, no one could have gone to the press conference.”
Makes very good sense to me. I think individuals can be left to make their own opinions on what is said in press conferences. Acosta has certainly been outspoken from the get go... One can agree with his methods or not agree. He has the right to ask questions. Hopefully, he will learn to be polite enough to take is turn, and accept the answers he receives and then gives another reporter a chance to ask a question. If not hopefully his peers will speak to him about sharing the opportunity to ask questions.
Just my opinion, I think the WH should drop this issue. Both sides have made their point. It appears both the president and Acosta have used their free speech card... Acosta having the right ask our president questions unimpeded, and Trump giving Acosta an ear full of his opinion is of him... This country has a lot more to deal with than the president's problem with CNN. The general public is certainly once again split on what went down at the now notorious press conference. This head-butting on both sides will most likely not stop, and it only stands to deepen the country's divide.
All Trump has to do is not call on Acosta. But I suspect he will keep doing so for the sake of the drama. Acosta will gladly take part.
Trump will use it to trash CNN and media in general to his supporters. Acosta will use it for ratings.
Can't disagree with the judge's ruling based upon "rudeness is not a standard". The WH will have to lay out what it considers proper behavior at these briefings; if Acosta decides he's going to continue to act like a jerk, then he probably won't get called on, that's all.
Agree. Trump knew what was coming the minute he called on him...
As most of us who understand the constitution expected, it looks like Bozo Trump's 'brilliant gambit' just turned into anther DUMB loss for him personally and his pathetic circus of redundant retardation:
But on the bright side, soon, he should have plenty of time to actually read the U.S. Constitution in prison, in between shining Bubba's cell slippers and washing the prison bullies back:
"Judge orders White House to return Jim Acosta's press pass"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/16/media/cn … index.html
Trump is on the wrong side of most everything and it's not going to end well for him.
Let's take a moment to consider this also:
""You have to act with respect," Trump says.
ha ha ha ha
What gets me about this situation is Acosta's behavior is not new for reporters. They interrupt, talk over people, and jostle for position. What IS new is Trump's reaction to it. Yes, Acosta was rude, but reporters are rude all the time; it is the nature of their job at times. For this President to tell someone else, anyone else, they must act with respect is the height of hypocrisy. The man doesn't respect the office, the citizens he is supposed to be serving, the people who have devoted their lives to law enforcement, the military, our allies, women. This President demands respect while he actively disrespects everything and everyone around him. It's unbelievable and laughable.
I agree with your point here - for Trump to tell someone else that they're being disrespectful is disingenuous.
Everyone sees the hypocrisy in Trump demanding respect from others, Pretty. It's just that his fans are so far gone in their adoration they will accept any excuse from him to assuage their guilt in electing him. Even if Trump's found guilty of criminal or treasonous activity, they'll make excuses for him. Watch and see...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brend … force-one/
Although the photograph was genuine, the accompanying caption contained multiple factual errors:
Brenda Lee was not on board Air Force One (as such, she could not have been “removed” from the presidential plane).
Lee was not removed from the press area at LAX by “Obama’s order.” President Obama wasn’t even at the airport at the time of the incident.
Lee didn’t grab someone “like Jim Acosta did,” as video shows that Acosta didn’t grab anyone.
Lee was not removed for being “pro-life”; she was removed for refusing to heed instructions from security personnel.
We found no reports documenting that Lee “permanently lost her White House press credentials.” We also could not confirm that Lee had ever received press credentials from the White House to begin with.
The reinstating of Jim Acosta's white house pass does absolute damage to not only CNN but to America's trust OF the news media .
What 75 -85 % of America see's but distrusts the US media bias and it's dishonesty , the grandstanding by Acosta and CNN not only promotes MORE media demise but It's simply a circus act to hold our attention , a circus act however is just a circus act.
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
To say that Donald Trump did all he could to impede President Biden from accomplishing the tasks America hired him to do is an understatement. He stooped so low that he fired, at 11:30 AM the chief Usher at the White House and sent most, if not all of the staff home. Consequently, there...
by crankalicious 9 months ago
Jared Kushner is in charge!https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/opin … virus.htmlThink of all the people Trump could have put in charge of directing resources during this pandemic and he chose Jared Kushner. Here's a great quote by Jared:According to Sherman, when New York’s governor, Andrew...
by Credence2 3 years ago
To refer to the "press as the enemy of the American people' in the terms he did was the epitome of stupid. This was attacked by many GOP as attacking the very foundation of America Democracy, the Fourth Estate. So many people think that I am picking on Trump, but I am not Charlie McCarthy,...
by Jack Lee 7 months ago
This latest 5/4 Supreme Court decision on DACA is inexplicable. John Roberts, as Chief Justice should know better. This is a series of miss steps by John Roberts ever since the decision on the ACA. Why is this happening to our high courts? It was John Roberts who claim there is no politics in the...
by Randy Godwin 3 years ago
After many times stating he looked forward to being interviewed by Mueller, Trump's lawyers are now looking intently at the possibility of it being a perjury trap and are pulling back on his testifying at all. After chastising others who plead the fifth it, now looks as if the Bozo-In-Chief is...
by crankalicious 6 weeks ago
This is your President:a man who claims fraud in the 2016 election and organizes a committee to find fraud which fails and disbands.a man who again claims fraud in the 2020 election before the election even happens and does not commit to the peaceful transfer of power.a man who claims fraud after...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|