No one abandoned the original question posed by the OP. It was easily and simply answered many posts back. Allow me to repeat:
Everyone knows this, and there isn’t much need to discuss it, so we might as well talk about Acosta’s conduct.
Well, plus for some reason an anti-journalism message seems to resonate with a surprisingly and sadly large number of Americans. Want to get cheers in America? Go after journalists, “intellectuals”, “elites”, “city-folk”… some of them will just go nuts for that.
It is not. Quit projecting victim hood.
Calling someone a liar is a reflection of intent. Saying someone is wrong is not. As a member of this board, you ought to know that.
In this particular case, it’s clear that Trump was lying to inflame racist opinions for the election - but that isn’t what Acosta said, to his credit.
If Fox questioned Obama on statements like “If you like your doctor you can keep him” in the same manner Acosta did, that would be a MASSIVE improvement for Fox and I would applaud them!
“What were you trying to accomplish by brazenly lying to the American people?”
Next question…?
[one member of press corp starts slow clap]
The best evidence that the Mueller investigation is gonna churn up all sorts of shit is Trump’s behavior. He knows what he has done, and he knows that the people talking to investigators now know what he has done. His only option is to try to cast doubt on the investigators who will release the reports and the press who will report on it. And that’s what he is doing. And I’m only half sure it won’t work.
To be fair, Trump has no obligation to be a straight-up liar either. And there’s nothing wrong whatsoever with calling out the President of the United States on his brazen lies; it’s appropriate behavior.
But as I’ve said, it’s perfectly easy to imagine a variety of substantive responses to Acosta’s question. The president is always welcome to stop lying and to admit what he did. If he’s not willing to do that, he could engage in some rhetorical flourish to double-down. On the infinitesimal chance he wasn’t lying, he could either explain how what he said was accurate, or obliquely explain why national security concerns prevent him from revealing the intelligence he’s received that justifies his claim.
Buying into the president’s war against the media is a deeply terrible thing to do.
Unless of course you secretly believe there is a way for your political party to stay in power indefinitely.
You know how I keep people from calling me a liar? I don’t lie every time I open my mouth.
Maybe Trump should give that a try.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, I think a distinction needs to be made here. Is this what is actually happening wrt Trump’s actions? Absolutely it is. Is it what he intends? That’s a more difficult question. First off, I don’t know if Trump actually understands what role of the press is, or respects that role if he does. Secondly, I think that Trump doesn’t have some 3-D chess level strategies or strategic goals. What Trump wants, IMHO, is to shut the press that disagrees with him down while inflating the press that agrees with and gets his message out. It’s pretty clear that he’s simply pissed off at both CNN and Acosta because they don’t play along with his narrative, and he’s just lashing out. Like a kid in day school throwing a temper tantrum because he’s not getting all the candy. I honestly don’t think ascribing deep motives or strategy to this guy is the right way to view things.
It’s certainly having that effect, and that’s certainly a bad thing…join it to the list of all the reasons we should have voted in Clinton and damned well better vote in ANYONE ELSE in the next election.
Absolutely not.
If taking Acosta’s pass for being disrespectful is “undermining the press” the bar is super low.
He hates the press and they hate him back. He doesn’t play the game they were used to with other presidents (for better or worse). He gives blunt answers or avoids them without the finesse Obama or Clinton had or even GW Bush.
When he imprisons a couple of reporters or forces a network owner to sell it to one of his friends or something like that, then call me.
Sure thing…and I’ll be sure to wait until your barn is burned to a cinder before letting you know your horses might be in danger.
I’m certain that the press can be undermined with steps short of kidnapping, murder, etc. Taking administrative steps to punish reporters for asking questions that the President doesn’t like is a perfectly valid description of “undermining the press.”
Sure he does. The role of the press is another marketing channel to spread the Trump “brand”. Look, Trump doesn’t care about that civics class “effective democracy” stuff. Trump does what he knows. Being the CEO of a family business he was born into. That is to say, someone who is used to having people do what he tells them without argument and having the resources at hand to do what he wants. All the political stuff is just an annoying distraction to Trump.
John Barron sure as hell knew what the role of the press was in relation to Donald Trump.
Laying off the Acosta question, what about his response to Abby Phillip’s question?
This was a “stupid question” only in the sense that even an idiot could see that it was the obvious question that the president needed to answer. He just fired his Attorney General whom he had repeatedly criticized for having recused himself from the Mueller investigation, but not for anything else, and replaced him with someone whose only credentials are that he criticized the probe. It therefor entirely reasonable to speculate that Trump took this to reign in a probe that he had repeatedly called an unlawful witch hunt. If Trump had an alternative explanation for his actions that would have been the time to give them. Instead he deflected by insulting the questioner. Even now almost two weeks later, I still don’t know the official white house explanation for Session’s firing.
Trump is especially frustrated because today’s headlines are such a stark contrast from the planted ones from those 80s NY tabloid days. He went from:
“Best Sex I’ve Ever Had!”
to
“Smaller Than Average, Mushroom-shaped Penis!”
See, that’s an example of a meaningful question about the Mueller investigation and even Trump’s refusal can be taken as useful information. It blows me away that people are happy with “just admit ‘invasion’ was racist rhetoric!” or “are you scared of indictments?” as press corp questions.
Your claim that Trump gave us useful information? This is the point of disconnect that makes meaningful conversation on this topic almost impossible.
Refusing to answer a question with regard to your plans or intentions is significantly more meaningful compared to refusing to answer a question about how racist or scared you are. If you don’t get that, then yes the disconnect is likely unbridgeable.
You aren’t saying it but your position seems to defend “when did you stop beating your wife?” as a legit question. I’m sure LHoD thinks there’s many substantial ways to answer that question.