Maybe you’ll get him this time.
emhhahahk. Pardon me.
“Maybe you’ll get your HANDS on him this time.”
Carry on.
Well, I appreciate the effort.
I would certainly agree with the premise that there are more-optimal and less-optimal ways of phrasing questions (to the President or otherwise). I’m not so sure that the frequent claim (not explicitly made by you, but made by others) that Acosta’s questions are defective (“grandstanding” etc.) is supportable—I’m not sure there’s any bright line of quality between Acosta’s questions, and those asked by other reporters.
A full-fledged study by experts in linguistics might be of interest. Perhaps one will appear.
“Broke down to”?
What did he actually say?
It’s a tough gig to construct and spew cromulent, on-the-fly queries that the POTUS will feel compelled to respond to directly, but probably won’t, so it has to somewhat deliver on its own among the deluge of similar “soliloquies” from your colleagues.
That’s basically what he actually said. Interrupted the President with “but that’s not an actual invasion”, his “one more question” was a completely unrelated “are you worried about indictments coming down from the Mueller investigation?”
My god the pedantry and selective laziness on this board can drive me nuts. It took me two fucking seconds to look up the video.
I think Acosta isn’t at all the partisan that he’s made out to be, but I do think he has a strong tendency to draw attention to himself rather than the story.
Like when Obama was in office, there was some event where Obama took questions from YouTube users instead of the press corps. Acosta got really snotty and asked why the President would take questions from “Charlie Bit My Finger” instead of real journalists. You know, a real probing question.
It’s possible for members of the WH Press Corps to be pompous blowhards and also performing an important function critical to a healthy democracy. One does not negate the other.
In other news [sic], curse you all for giving me this earworm.
Yep-that is certainly a word for word match for “You called the migrants a bunch of invaders, but they aren’t. What’s up with that?” :rolleyes:
And it took me one fucking second to notice that the sentences didn’t match at all.
Good lord, the whining!
I summarized Acosta’s question into a handful of words. Now your feelings are hurt that the words were not verbatim what Acosta said. Meanwhile, you didn’t actually care enough to google the transcript of the press conference, which is literally everywhere, and wanted others to find it for you.
Do you have an actual point here? Or is it just the nitpickery that CarnalK referenced?
The point is rather obvious: If you’re gonna bitch about how someone says something, then bitch about what they actually say. Acosta isn’t responsible for the words you put in his mouth. You are.
Here’s what was actually said:
Given that Ravenman made it clear he was paraphrasing, I think he wasn’t too far off the mark–but what his paraphrase didn’t capture is how goddamned difficult it is to get a clear, cogent question out when the President is constantly interrupting you with insults and irrelevancies. It sounds to me like Acosta had a legitimate challenge he was raising to the president’s lies.
I used words to the effect of, his question boiled down to…
As LHoD said, any paraphrasing is going to leave out context and nuance, but there was certainly no strawmanning of Acosta’s question.
Let me ask you this: do you pinky swear not to paraphrase any complex exchange or idea in future debates on this board? Because apparently you have a big problem with me not posting a page and a half transcript in order to criticize a shitty question asked during a press conference. I openly question whether you hold yourself to the standard you’re nitpicking me over; or whether this is a matter even more petty than nitpicking.
Pinky swear? I’m not a child. There is a difference between a basic paraphrase meant to get the gist of what someone said, and a base paraphrase meant to belittle what someone said, and I think what was given was base indeed…especially when the whole conversation showed what Acosta had to work with when trying to get his words past Trump’s constant interruptions and insults.
And the reason you were too lazy to look up the exchange yourself is…?
And by the way, if you want to argue any substance - like if you thought he asked a GOOD question - go for it. But this whinging about a paraphrase not being totally and faithfully true to the original in some vague respects is really a pissant argument to make.
I gave what I thought was a legitimate reason to object to that particular paraphrase, so I am done with it.
Dear tomndebb
Considering the fact that the thread in question continued on for some 90 post, and lasted several days, with various members continuing to argue over whether Acosta touched/pushed/defended himself from a woman or not, I disagee with your assumption “that this is not what happened”. If it were as obvious as you seem to think it was, there would have been no need for further discussion. I assume people are still allowed to disagree with each other, within forum rules of course.
If you don’t approve the use of the “doctored” video, there are other providers of the video which shows Acosta’s left arm traveling downward and making contact with the woman’s left arm. The woman’s arm then moves downward after, and because, contact is made. Acosta then grabs the microphone with his left hand. Based on the video evidence, it’s my belief that Acosta made physical contact with the woman.
(Here is a slow motion video of the incident. If you don’t like this one, the internet has several others. I suggest that you turn the sound off (it’s just boring blah, blah, blah) in order to better concentrate on the action.)
There seem to be some differences in your two statements. Care to explain?
Some things that are not clear to me:
-Did Acosta touch her even slightly as he withdrew and lowered his hand?
-Did Acosta notice her before he withdrew his hand?
-Did Acosta intend to lower his hand in a way that blocked her from snatching the microphone from him?
Those things can be reasonably argued over.
Things that are clear?
-Acosta did not turn into a giant raven and pluck out the intern’s eyes.
-Acosta did not pull a harmonica out of the intern’s pocket and play a lightly mocking ditty.
-Acosta did not stuff the microphone in his mouth and swallow it before she had a chance to grab it.
-Acosta did not hit her.
The fact that folks are debating any of the first few points does not mean that debating any of the later points is a reasonable thing to do, and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous.
Wait, are you sure? What the hell video have I been watching then?