Jump to content

White House uses edited video to justify banning Jim Acosta.


AuCivilEng1

Recommended Posts





2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Anyone want to discuss this? Is this going to be ok now? We get to see what the White House wants us to see, even if it's fake?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1929569002

 

Another discussion about Acosta in Smack and that is where it belongs. That is where it needs to stay and you know it Civ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Another discussion about Acosta in Smack and that is where it belongs. That is where it needs to stay and you know it Civ

The POTUS puts out altered videos to bolster their argument and you don't think that's worth serious discussion? :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

The POTUS puts out altered videos to bolster their argument and you don't think that's worth serious discussion? :dunno:

When it comes to Acosta the answer is no. Not worth discussion period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Another discussion about Acosta in Smack and that is where it belongs. That is where it needs to stay and you know it Civ

Actually I didn't know it. I don't believe I've ever ventured into the smack forum in all my years on this. Political smack talk isn't my thing. We are talking about people's lives and well being in the polics forum. It's not a football game. I don't see how this is something that should go in smack though. I'm with Homer. This seems pretty serious. The White House is using info wars vids to conduct business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ShocksMyBrain said:

The point is that the White House is attempting to gaslight American citizens. 

This is useless. Salty doesn't like Jim Acosta, so we aren't allowed to acknowledge him as a somebody. That's the defense for this, apparently. It doesn't matter that the White House used fake video footage, because Acosta isn't legit, because he dares to ask the führer questions that he doesn't approve of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

The POTUS puts out altered videos to bolster their argument and you don't think that's worth serious discussion? :dunno:

let us not forget the altered version the white house put out after the meeting with putin as well. that is the kind of propaganda third world countries put out and i find it very alarming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Jim Acosta is not business. He his a clown and you know it.

You are confused.  This is about the president's behavior.  Acosta's behavior in the press conference was not unreasonable and his prior history is not relevant, clown or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

When it comes to Acosta the answer is no. Not worth discussion period.

You're flat out wrong here.  This administration is engaged in digital propaganda against a citizen and member of the media.  Regardless of your opinion of Acosta, this is a serious affront to America standards in politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Anyone want to discuss this? Is this going to be ok now? We get to see what the White House wants us to see, even if it's fake?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1929569002

 

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. George Orwell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proud you're just going down the line and down voting people, but have had absolutely nothing to say about the fake news the white house is putting out. Guess its fine by you because it's Trump? 🐑🐑🐑🐑

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I COMPLETELY agree that the White House should not have used a video of the incident that left out 3 frames. It was either incompetent or dishonest for them to do so. However, the undoctored video is more than enough evidence for me to conclude that punishing Acosta is acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

I COMPLETELY agree that the White House should not have used a video of the incident that left out 3 frames. It was either incompetent or dishonest for them to do so. However, the undoctored video is more than enough evidence for me to conclude that punishing Acosta is acceptable.

Why? What in the world did he do? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched it over and over and over and I just don't see where he does anything. I see her being aggressive when she's trying to snatch the mic from his hand. All I see him doing is his arms comes down when she yanks at the mic and he very calmly says excuse me ma'am. This is a joke. The president has openly admitted to groping women by their genitals, unsolicited, on camera. This is a smack in the face to people that have actually been assaulted. 

Ask yourself this. If Acosta had actually done anything, that warranted the action they took, why would info wars need to make a video making it look aggressive? And why would the White House be using that video and not the real one? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I've watched it over and over and over and I just don't see where he does anything. I see her being aggressive when she's trying to snatch the mic from his hand. All I see him doing is his arms comes down when she yanks at the mic and he very calmly says excuse me ma'am. This is a joke. The president has openly admitted to groping women by their genitals, unsolicited, on camera. This is a smack in the face to people that have actually been assaulted. 

Ask yourself this. If Acosta had actually done anything, that warranted the action they took, why would info wars need to make a video making it look aggressive? And why would the White House be using that video and not the real one? 

If you are going to exaggerate then it is hard to have a serious discussion (I don't think you can corroborate your claim that Trump admitted groping women by their genitals, but that is for another discussion). Whose microphone was it? Who handed the microphone to Acosta? Whose job was it to give the microphone to other reporters? Did she try to "snatch" the microphone from Acosta or did she try to perform her job and take it from him? Did he push her arm away or not? Does Acosta have a right to hold the microphone? He was a guest at the briefing and did not act appropriately as determined by the White House. Who should determine appropriate behavior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that it wasn't his microphone. It's the people's microphone. And he was using it to ask questions that the people have a right to know. And she ran over there and put her hands on him while he was using it. But that still doesn't explain how you're seeing something that didn't happen. Like I said, if he had done something, the White House wouldn't be needing to show fake videos that made him look aggressive. That's just the fact of the matter. If you can explain why they would use tailored footage, other than wanting to show him being aggressive enough to ban, then maybe your argument that he was acting aggressive will stick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I agree with you that it wasn't his microphone. It's the people's microphone. And he was using it to ask questions that the people have a right to know. And she ran over there and put her hands on him while he was using it. But that still doesn't explain how you're seeing something that didn't happen. Like I said, if he had done something, the White House wouldn't be needing to show fake videos that made him look aggressive. That's just the fact of the matter. If you can explain why they would use tailored footage, other than wanting to show him being aggressive enough to ban, then maybe your argument that he was acting aggressive will stick. 

Seriously, you type the sentence I have bolded for you and in the next sentence say that I am seeing something that didn't happen? When did she run? Where did she touch him? I think that you are exaggerating AGAIN. Do  you REALLY think that the woman whose job was to give the microphone to the reporters was in the wrong?

My first post agreed with you that the White House should not have used a video that left out the 3 frames that justifies your claim that the video is doctored. YOU WIN THAT POINT.

The people's microphone. HAHAHAHA! Why don't you do try to take it and see if the secret service agrees with you!

Acosta was lecturing the POTUS despite having been given an opportunity to ask questions. He was a guest in the briefing room and despite being asked to stop talking, he persisted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Seriously, you type the sentence I have bolded for you and in the next sentence say that I am seeing something that didn't happen? When did she run? Where did she touch him? I think that you are exaggerating AGAIN. Do  you REALLY think that the woman whose job was to give the microphone to the reporters was in the wrong?

My first post agreed with you that the White House should not have used a video that left out the 3 frames that justifies your claim that the video is doctored. YOU WIN THAT POINT.

The people's microphone. HAHAHAHA! Why don't you do try to take it and see if the secret service agrees with you!

Acosta was lecturing the POTUS despite having been given an opportunity to ask questions. He was a guest in the briefing room and despite being asked to stop talking, he persisted.

I'm not exaggerating. This whole thing is about the white house and Trumpers  exaggerating what actually happened in  that room. I personally don't think anyone is really in the wrong. But if someone was guilty of aggressive physical behavior it was the person trying to grab the mic he was holding. And as for the people's mic. You know exactly what that means. It's property of the American government. That mic does not belong to Donald Trump. It's supposed to be given to reporters so they can ask questions, whether he likes the questions or not. But he chose to go off on a rant like a child and start attacking people personally, for asking him questions. Also I understand that you agree with the fact that they shouldn't be putting out doctored vids. And by God, thank you for at least having the testicular fortitude to say that. A lot of people wont. But I am using it as a defense to Acosta's actions, not to argue the fake news. I truly believe that if he had done something out of line, they wouldn't be using fake vids. They'd let the real vid do the talking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...