You have a poor understanding of what acting professional means. You can love his style all you like but he is most definitely a grandstander trying to get himself into the headlines.
That’s you being obtuse again. Not every use of the word “right” is in the Constitutional sense. The White house always had the ability to refuse Acosta speaking time at its press conferences.
(bolding mine)Is that what happened?
No and I didn’t even come close to saying so. Weird question.
Yeah, this Acosta obsession is causing him to misread uncontroversial statements.
Back to whether Trump is trying to undermine the roll of the press: Has he ever held a press conference where he didn’t disparage those who are assigned to question him?
No, he’s trying to get his story into the headlines, which is exactly what his job is. Trying to do his job is what “professional” means. It was Trump’s doing that he himself got into the headlines.
Short version: You called it an invasion, but “as you know” it was not an invasion. Why would you say such a lie?
That is not a question; it is an accusation framed in the form of a question.
Then:
I count six different times the President either told Acosta that was enough out of him or called on another reporter. SIX. The President is in charge of the press conference, not Acosta. He has a right to control the dialogue.
If Acosta feels slighted, he can write an article talking about how the President refused to answer his wonderful questions, about how terrible the President is, how Jim Acosta really has the largest penis in the history of the world, or whatever he wants to write about. But neither he, nor anyone else in the country, can disrupt an event by refusing to follow instructions from the person hosting the event.
That is so simple that if there was not this blind hatred of Donald Trump, everyone would agree.
Missed the edit window: A “follow up” question is when the answer to your initial question raises a point that you wish to explore further. It goes not mean that you get two questions.
A question about the Russia probe has no relevance to the caravan. In no sense is it a follow up question.
Here is an annotated transcript of his very first press conference as President-Elect, in which he begins with attacking the press and continues to do so throughout the event.
Hatred. Yes.
Blind. No.
This guy asks TEN times. Shouldn’t Trump show at least that much courtesy?
If you would like to see a shit-ton of evidence that Trump is deliberately undermining the press, check out this detailed list of his various attacks and schemes.
So you don’t think the President should be asked about his lies? I mean, there are an awful lot of them; daily press conferences would be insufficient to cover them. And if he’s not openly lying, SHS is. Is it your opinion that official lies should never be questioned and the liars never called to account for them? Or that they can only be questioned in a manner and at a time chosen the people telling the lies? The flaw in this approach is so simple to see that if there were not this blind support of Donald Trump, everyone would agree.
I’ll also point out that the very same day as the Acosta incident the President shouted at and/or insulted several other reporters who did “follow instructions”. So let’s not pretend this is all somehow Acosta’s fault.
Trump clearly has some totalitarian tendencies. Didn’t he once say he admires strong leaders like Putin and Erdogan? What do these strong leaders have that he doesn’t? A large penis and control over the press. Since he cannot get a large penis he will have to settle for number two.
I see what you did there. 
Trump has utter contempt for the press, can’t stand any type of criticism and would probably shut down the major newspapers if he could, So, yeah, there is no question he would like to “undermine” the press. In fact, I would call that an understatement.
Having said that, Acosta got what was coming to him, IMO. I know there is a long tradition of reporters trying to be the one questioner who gets the best zinger in during presidential news conferences, but there is no reason that any president needs to put up with a reporter who won’t surrender the microphone. And in the end, the story was all about him (Acosta), so win-win. Trump gets to institute “new rules” and Acosta gets to be famous. And Trump gets people taking about this story, taking some of the focus away from all the other shit going on. Is this a great country or what?
I think it is absolutely, undeniably true that Trump misrepresented the caravans to manufacture a threat to the U.S. just before the mid-terms.
Others might not think that it is a stone-cold lock like I do. But, it is the main responsibility of the press to challenge the statements and policies of anyone in government, from dogcatcher to president.
If you are against the press challenging politicians on their statements, you are against the entire purpose of freedom of the press and the First Amendment.
And US politicians have gotten a much lighter ride from the press traditionally than those in some other countries in terms of direct questioning. The UK notably has a long history of the press asking politicians difficult questions, but then the whole Parliamentary system involves politicians asking tough questions of each other and answering them so they’re used to it and can usually field them with aplomb. I recall a joint Blair-Bush press conference during the Iraq War during which the BBC’s Nick Robinson asked Blair a fairly ordinary question by UK standards (can’t remember what specifically) and Bush was shocked that the press would dare to do so (“They’re calling you out!” he cried, to Blair’s visible confusion).
It’s a pity that such challenge isn’t a part of the US system, which in part is not only why US politicians lie so much but why the lies are so idiotic.
Maybe Trump should just stop lying.
Crazy idea, I know.
Even his own lawyers don’t seem to think he can.
True. But, it’s not absolutely undeniably true that calling it an invasion was incorrect. That is purely a semantic argument and a matter of opinion, not fact.
Yes, and he was allowed to do that. What he wasn’t allowed to do was to keep possession of the microphone after his question (about the “invasion”) was asked and answered. IOW, he was not allowed to monopolize the floor.
Acosta was allowed to challenge the president. But he wasn’t allowed to do so as long as he might have wanted. Trump was dismissive of Acosta’s question, but he answered it and asked him to yield the floor to someone else.