In order to present his sham image for those suckers who support him, Trump constantly abandons decorum and abases the dignity of the office of the President by engaging in whatever squalid, attention-seeking rhetorical stunt will misdirect the public, thereby insulting the intelligence and faith of the people of this nation. He has absolutely no claim—no moral high ground—for respect, whether it be at a press conference or otherwise. He has abdicated that by the very techniques he uses to maintain his unprincipled and contemptuous self-serving political advantage.
Considering this, that anyone could sit there with a straight face and point a finger at Acosta for simply engaging with Trump on his own terms is the height of hypocrisy—or maybe just decrepit, quisling malleability.
So why not focus on the real problem-the clown car that has been showing up at every press conference? Have you taken a peak at this list I posted earlier today? This has very little to do with one reporter, and very much to do with a President trying to undermine the press since his very first press conference as a President-Elect.
Well, okay. Then just quisling malleability. I agree that rhetorically it was clumsy and ill-advised, but Acosta’s grandstanding is not the real problem here.
It’s not fucking quisling malleability either. Do you also wish Mueller was making 3am tweets about his investigation? After all, Trump does it! Don’t want to be a quisling!
Yes, Trump is more of a problem than Acosta. That doesn’t make grandstanding personality journalism not a real problem. Trump is doing his damndest to undermine trust in the press. Acosta doesn’t have to help him out.
That entire exchange was available in the unaltered video of the press conference. If there was clear reason to ban Acosta in the unaltered version, why did the white house choose to release an altered version of the video and claim it was the reason they banned him?
I don’t think the analogy to a clown is particularly useful, but leaving that aside for a minute, the idea that Acosta’s behavior is in the same category as Trump’s is laughable.
Trump is often an obnoxious, spiteful bully and he was in character during the press conference. Acosta was being a slightly over-aggressive journalist. It’s what they do as long as they can get away with it. He was going for the “gotcha”. I’m not a fan of that kind of journalism, but it’s not at all unusual.
To clarify things, do you agree or disagree that Trump misrepresented the caravans to look like a greater threat, in order to gain electoral advantage?
I think Acosta isn’t “allowed” to monopolize the floor in the same manner that Trump isn’t “allowed” to interrupt reporters while asking questions.
Uh oh Ravenman. We should probably coordinate so that John only has to argue one side of his argument at a time. I mean we don’t want him to have to concurrently argue that Acosta was only a slightly over-aggressive journalist which is not at all unusual while also arguing that he was not allowed to monopolize the floor and totally got what he deserved. We could break John Mace’s brain.
Not to speak for John Mace, but I’m confident that he’s more than capable of holding a coherent, reasoned position which manages to occupy neither extreme of an issue, and that doing so represents no particularly great mental strain for him.
“I don’t agree with how Acosta comported himself, and would prefer a little less personality driven journalism. At the same time it’s ridiculous to compare Acosta’s behavior with that of Trump, who is a terrible, disgraceful bully.”
OHMYGOD SUCH NUANCE.
I can’t imagine how someone would be able to hold those obviously incompatible thoughts in one’s head at the same time. Surely it would explode at the very attempt.
Oh, your plan would work out stunningly. If we just say that the President does lie, then he must subject himself to inquisition. Again, not going to happen. No president will do it.
Can I go into the city council meeting and call the mayor a fucking asshole? What if I claim that he really is a fucking asshole? Do I get a free pass?
Does the mayor then have the right to say ok, you’ve made your point now let someone else speak? If you refuse his direction six times, do you think you will stay in the meeting?
Yes. But the point that I think was being argued was the nature of Acosta’s question, which was Trump’s use of the term “invasion”. Acosta didn’t ask about “Middle Easterners” or “Gang Members” or “Bad Hombres” or any of the undeniable mischaracterizations made by Trump. He asked why Trump called it an invasion. And Trump gave him an answer.
I don’t think that’s really an accurate way to look at it. It’s Tump’s press conference and he can interrupt as many reporters as he wants. No one is going to physically stop him from doing that. OTOH, if a reporter refuses to surrender the microphone, someone will physically take it from him or her. And just to be clear, I don’t think Acosta got to that point. But he was asked to surrender the microphone several times before he actually did. It is the president’s prerogative to call on whom he wants to call on and to move onto the next question by the next reporter when he wants to. I’m pretty sure you and I are in agreement on that point.
My position hasn’t changed. Only your interpretation of it has. Better luck next time.
It certainly was embarrassing for Acosta, not that he would notice. Did you happen to see the other reporters in the original video who had raised their hand in the hope that the President would call on them? All of the reporters in the room were hoping that they would get an opportunity to ask their question. Acosta continued to act as if he was the most important person in the room, which he wasn’t. Acosta was going to physically defend his self-imposed right to keep that microphone.