White House revokes Jim Acosta's press pass

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So what's your problem with that statement?

Acosta asked straightforward questions based on previous statements by Trump.  Trump refused to answer them.

“Refusing to answer” was not a constitutional violation. Are you insinuating a Constitutional Right was abrogated through the suspension of his press pass? Or that he wasn’t allowed to ask more questions? 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

Him Acosta is "the press"...and the couple dozen other shouting voices in the press conferences are who ?

Also the press.  Several of which were treated in a hostile manner by POTUS yesterday just for the questions that they asked.  Trump's antagonism isn't just limited to Acosta.  Acosta is the focal point here because of the unusual step taken to revoke his WH credentials.

[homersapien 11,352]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

“Refusing to answer” was not a constitutional violation. Are you insinuating a Constitutional Right was abrogated through the suspension of his press pass? Or that he wasn’t allowed to ask more questions? 

Of course, I never said it was.   This is more begging-the-question coming from the master of such weaseling tactics.

I am simply pointing out your claim that Acosta "isn’t their to actually ask questions, as much as he is to push false narratives" is totally bogus.

Your willingness to support the POTUS in resisting questions from the press is very disturbing considering how a free press is a bedrock of our liberty.  Especially coming from a law student.

[homersapien 11,352]

18 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 A President tells a reporter their time is up. Yes I’m ok with that. 

 

What about a president that claims the press is an "enemy of the people"?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Your willingness to support the POTUS in resisting questions from the press is very disturbing considering how a free press is a bedrock of our liberty.  Especially coming from a law student.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. Acosta’s suspension does not amount to an abrogation of the Constitutionally protected free press. Nor does the protection, in any way, permit quantitative questioning at whim. Your fundamental lack of understanding is not disturbing though, especially coming from a washed up scientist.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

Nothing about our system of government works right without a basic undergirding principle that our leaders are accountable to us for the things they do and say, and that one is the chief mechanisms for holding them accountable is a free press asking them tough questions. To start getting pedantic about the constitutionality of refusing to answer questions and revoking the credentials of press members when they ask one’s you don’t like misses the point entirely. 

And one way to test your argument on this is to ask yourself how you would have truly responded if a Fox News reporter had asked Obama a few pointed questions and Obama had tried to yank his or her mic and then revoked their credentials over he whole thing. I know my reaction would be exactly the same. Obama would deserve to be called out for it. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What about a president that claims the press is an "enemy of the people"?

 

What about it?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

To start getting pedantic about the constitutionality of refusing to answer questions and revoking the credentials of press members when they ask one’s you don’t like misses the point entirely. 

Homer brought up freedom of the press. Do not manipulate. 

[TitanTiger 20,468]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Homer brought up freedom of the press. Do not manipulate. 

Regardless of who brought it up originally, I’m still addressing an argument that you’re making. 

[rhughes 59]

So I'm having a tough time understanding what questions were not answered?  I don't agree with some of the answers he gave but he in fact did answer them. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, rhughes said:

So I'm having a tough time understanding what questions were not answered?  I don't agree with some of the answers he gave but he in fact did answer them. 

He needs "hard subjective truth," of which he is the arbiter, that Acosta isn't at these briefings to ask questions, as much as he is to push false narratives and further divide. 

Physically preventing an intern from doing her job isn't enough for him, or puppet Homer.  

*Now wait for some long, chastising assessment. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, rhughes said:

So I'm having a tough time understanding what questions were not answered?  I don't agree with some of the answers he gave but he in fact did answer them. 

I watched the whole thing yesterday.  One example of the top of my head:

A question was asked that had to due with how he would address things like rising anti-Semitism in this country.  Trump then went on rambling about our relationship with Israel, moving our embassy, etc.  The answer did not address the question one bit.  When pressed by the same reporter about what about things that happen here, which was the original question, he ignored it and moved on.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

He needs "hard subjective truth," of which he is the arbiter, that Acosta isn't at these briefings to ask questions, as much as he is to push false narratives and further divide. 

Physically preventing an intern from doing her job isn't enough for him, or puppet Homer.  

*Now wait for some long, chastising assessment. 

You put forth an argument that this revocation of credentials wasn't really about this one incident, but a pattern of behavior.  I simply asked for some examples of how he's not asking reasonable questions that earned him this reaction from the WH.

If you don't want to provide them, can't provide them, realize you spat out an argument you can't back and don't wish to lose face, or whatever it is, fine.  But let's not pretend I'm asking you for some difficult, arcane and ridiculous thing here.  Sack up or move on, but either way, stop complaining about being asked to back your arguments.

[rhughes 59]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

I watched the whole thing yesterday.  One example of the top of my head:

A question was asked that had to due with how he would address things like rising anti-Semitism in this country.  Trump then went on rambling about our relationship with Israel, moving our embassy, etc.  The answer did not address the question one bit.  When pressed by the same reporter about what about things that happen here, which was the original question, he ignored it and moved on.

Oh I thought you all were talking about the exchange between him and Acosta.  That's what I was replying to

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, rhughes said:

Oh I thought you all were talking about the exchange between him and Acosta.  That's what I was replying to

I'm looking at it from a holistic perspective.  The Acosta thing is a cover for Trump being hostile/evasive with the entire room yesterday.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You put forth an argument that this revocation of credentials wasn't really about this one incident, but a pattern of behavior.  I simply asked for some examples of how he's not asking reasonable questions that earned him this reaction from the WH.

If you don't want to provide them, can't provide them, realize you spat out an argument you can't back and don't wish to lose face, or whatever it is, fine.  But let's not pretend I'm asking you for some difficult, arcane and ridiculous thing here.  Sack up or move on, but either way, stop complaining about being asked to back your arguments.

Oh I’m not complaining at all. I’m quite entertained, actually. You can readily research prior Acosta briefings if you’d like:) 

After all, it’s your judgement.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You put forth an argument that this revocation of credentials wasn't really about this one incident, but a pattern of behavior.  I simply asked for some examples of how he's not asking reasonable questions that earned him this reaction from the WH.

If you don't want to provide them, can't provide them, realize you spat out an argument you can't back and don't wish to lose face, or whatever it is, fine.  But let's not pretend I'm asking you for some difficult, arcane and ridiculous thing here.  Sack up or move on, but either way, stop complaining about being asked to back your arguments.

If you had watched press conferences over time you would see his pattern of rude behavior, especially with Sarah Huckabee. He is rarely content with one question and tries to monopolize the questioning while taking opportunities from other reporters.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Oh I’m not complaining at all. I’m quite entertained, actually. You can readily research prior Acosta briefings if you’d like:) 

After all, it’s your judgement.

You put it forth as a rationale.  He who makes the assertion must support it.  It's on you to show examples, not send others to do your work for you.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

If you had watched press conferences over time you would see his pattern of rude behavior, especially with Sarah Huckabee. He is rarely content with one question and tries to monopolize the questioning while taking opportunities from other reporters.

I've watched several press conferences but haven't focused on any one reporter to notice.  Like I told Nola, he made the assertion about why Acosta was suspended.  It's on him to support his own argument, not tell others to go find it themselves.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I've watched several press conferences but haven't focused on any one reporter to notice.  Like I told Nola, he made the assertion about why Acosta was suspended.  It's on him to support his own argument, not tell others to go find it themselves.

I gave you the best supporting case possible. ....his behavior at press conferences over time. If you didn't see it you must not have been paying much attention or just don't want to acknowledge it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You put it forth as a rationale.  He who makes the assertion must support it.  It's on you to show examples, not send others to do your work for you.

I could care less if you don’t believe me. LOL. If you need convincing, do the work yourself. You will not force your subjective thresholds on me.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

I gave you the best supporting case possible. ....his behavior at press conferences over time. If you didn't see it you must not have been paying much attention or just don't want to acknowledge it.

Just saying "he's done it a lot" is not supporting your (or rather, his) case.  I asked for examples.  Not an exhaustive list obviously, but enough to establish this so-called pattern.  If they are as plentiful as you say, you/he should have little trouble with the request.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I could care less if you don’t believe me. LOL. If you need convincing, do the work yourself. You will not force your subjective thresholds on me.

In other words, you concede the point.  Thanks.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

In other words, you concede the point.  Thanks.

I concede nothing. You’re welcome.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Just saying "he's done it a lot" is not supporting your (or rather, his) case.  I asked for examples.  Not an exhaustive list obviously, but enough to establish this so-called pattern.  If they are as plentiful as you say, you/he should have little trouble with the request.

I don't have all those press conferences recorded. or would be happy to provide them. You just have your  heels dug in and won't accept reality.