|
On November 08 2018 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 22:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On November 08 2018 19:31 oBlade wrote:
Acosta is like the guy, if you've ever been in a class where one student thinks the teacher is his personal tutor and that he's the center of attention, and everyone else in the class is just the audience. It's like it's not all about you, if it's someone else's turn to ask a question then drop it. The fourth follow up question is never as great as the narcissist asking it thinks, but the purpose isn't the question, the purpose is to take the clip back to the network and dress it up as brave journalism - a guy wasting everyone's time rehashing the same talking points into an argumentative question in one of the most secure buildings in the world.
This not only applies to Jim Acosta but remember Jorge Ramos did it to Trump. It's something only "star" reporters can do, hog the spotlight and walk all over everyone else in the press room. WH has been more than patient. I mean I agree Acosta was probably annoying and rude by holding the mic in such a busy press room. But then you have the president reacting to his question with a personal attack (you should do your job at CNN better), reacting to the mic holding by calling him a terrible person and enemy of the people. And later Huckabee Sanders saying he harmed the microphone-woman in some way, which is clearly false. And then you can only defend Acosta because all of these actions are way worse than him asking a second question where he should not have. Also I think Sanders used a doctored clip sourced from Infowars to 'prove' that he was aggressive, which is ridiculous.
Yup, they did. Which is unacceptable, blatant dishonesty.
Speaking of, isn't this the same White House that gave InfoWars press credentials that one time? Because after saying "yes, please!" to Alex Jones there's really no room to criticize Acosta, whether on antisocial behavior, temperament, or quality of reporting.
I mean, it's obvious the reason this happened is because Acosta's reporting is critical of the WH. The rest is just an excuse they ginned up to try to silence a critic; if this incident were their real reason, why would they need to use doctored evidence?
|
Hard to remember if the same people that said Democrats were blowing Lewandowski grabbing that reporter out of proportion are the ones saying Acosta went too far by "harming" or whatever that woman, the turnover of "the best people" is absurdly high in the Trump administration.
|
On November 08 2018 22:41 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 08 2018 22:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On November 08 2018 19:31 oBlade wrote:
Acosta is like the guy, if you've ever been in a class where one student thinks the teacher is his personal tutor and that he's the center of attention, and everyone else in the class is just the audience. It's like it's not all about you, if it's someone else's turn to ask a question then drop it. The fourth follow up question is never as great as the narcissist asking it thinks, but the purpose isn't the question, the purpose is to take the clip back to the network and dress it up as brave journalism - a guy wasting everyone's time rehashing the same talking points into an argumentative question in one of the most secure buildings in the world.
This not only applies to Jim Acosta but remember Jorge Ramos did it to Trump. It's something only "star" reporters can do, hog the spotlight and walk all over everyone else in the press room. WH has been more than patient. I mean I agree Acosta was probably annoying and rude by holding the mic in such a busy press room. But then you have the president reacting to his question with a personal attack (you should do your job at CNN better), reacting to the mic holding by calling him a terrible person and enemy of the people. And later Huckabee Sanders saying he harmed the microphone-woman in some way, which is clearly false. And then you can only defend Acosta because all of these actions are way worse than him asking a second question where he should not have. Also I think Sanders used a doctored clip sourced from Infowars to 'prove' that he was aggressive, which is ridiculous. Yup, they did. Which is unacceptable, blatant dishonesty. Speaking of, isn't this the same White House that gave InfoWars press credentials that one time? Because after saying "yes, please!" to Alex Jones there's really no room to criticize Acosta, whether on antisocial behavior, temperament, or quality of reporting. I mean, it's obvious the reason this happened is because Acosta's reporting is critical of the WH. The rest is just an excuse they ginned up to try to silence a critic; if this incident were their real reason, why would they need to use doctored evidence?
To be fair, if a journalist is repeatedly rude or disrespectful to WH staff I would expect for their credentials to be rescinded. Politeness at work is basic. There was no need for the edited footage and no need to go to Infowars for official WH communication ever.
|
yea, what’s that old saying? never fight with a pig in the mud? except you can really have your pick on who’s the pig. but only one of them is our president , and the stye is the white house 🤷🏻♂️
|
On November 08 2018 18:57 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 08:59 iamthedave wrote:
Also, if we're prosecuting Hilary for e-mails do we prosecute Trump for using his iphone that the Chinese are listening in on? That New York Times story was horseshit. And besides, you're living in fantasy land if you think that having some purely personal phone calls on an unsecured telephone is in any way comparable to the Chinese literally reading in real time all of Hillary's emails containing state secrets. Citation needed. I read an awful lot of articles from back then on both sides of the aisle, nobody ever confirmed that anything actually leaked, and the EXHAUSTIVE investigation turned up exactly nothing. But by all means, share your case-redefining source that the FBI missed. I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear about it.
I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier in the thread, but here you go.
|
On November 08 2018 23:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 18:57 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 08:59 iamthedave wrote:
Also, if we're prosecuting Hilary for e-mails do we prosecute Trump for using his iphone that the Chinese are listening in on? That New York Times story was horseshit. And besides, you're living in fantasy land if you think that having some purely personal phone calls on an unsecured telephone is in any way comparable to the Chinese literally reading in real time all of Hillary's emails containing state secrets. Citation needed. I read an awful lot of articles from back then on both sides of the aisle, nobody ever confirmed that anything actually leaked, and the EXHAUSTIVE investigation turned up exactly nothing. But by all means, share your case-redefining source that the FBI missed. I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear about it. I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier in the thread, but here you go.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/donald-trump-china-hacking-clinton-emails/index.html
Your move.
|
|
|
On November 08 2018 23:46 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 23:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 18:57 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 08:59 iamthedave wrote:
Also, if we're prosecuting Hilary for e-mails do we prosecute Trump for using his iphone that the Chinese are listening in on? That New York Times story was horseshit. And besides, you're living in fantasy land if you think that having some purely personal phone calls on an unsecured telephone is in any way comparable to the Chinese literally reading in real time all of Hillary's emails containing state secrets. Citation needed. I read an awful lot of articles from back then on both sides of the aisle, nobody ever confirmed that anything actually leaked, and the EXHAUSTIVE investigation turned up exactly nothing. But by all means, share your case-redefining source that the FBI missed. I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear about it. I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier in the thread, but here you go. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/donald-trump-china-hacking-clinton-emails/index.htmlYour move.
I don't think that the FBI is being honest or transparent. One of the sources of the Daily Caller article is Rep. Gohmert, who is on the House Intelligence Committee.
|
On November 08 2018 23:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 23:46 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 23:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 18:57 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 08:59 iamthedave wrote:
Also, if we're prosecuting Hilary for e-mails do we prosecute Trump for using his iphone that the Chinese are listening in on? That New York Times story was horseshit. And besides, you're living in fantasy land if you think that having some purely personal phone calls on an unsecured telephone is in any way comparable to the Chinese literally reading in real time all of Hillary's emails containing state secrets. Citation needed. I read an awful lot of articles from back then on both sides of the aisle, nobody ever confirmed that anything actually leaked, and the EXHAUSTIVE investigation turned up exactly nothing. But by all means, share your case-redefining source that the FBI missed. I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear about it. I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier in the thread, but here you go. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/donald-trump-china-hacking-clinton-emails/index.htmlYour move. I don't think that the FBI is being honest or transparent. One of the sources of the Daily Caller article is Rep. Gohmert, who is on the House Intelligence Committee.
So you believe the FBI is lying to protect the Clintons?
|
On November 08 2018 23:50 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 23:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 23:46 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 23:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 18:57 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 08:59 iamthedave wrote:
Also, if we're prosecuting Hilary for e-mails do we prosecute Trump for using his iphone that the Chinese are listening in on? That New York Times story was horseshit. And besides, you're living in fantasy land if you think that having some purely personal phone calls on an unsecured telephone is in any way comparable to the Chinese literally reading in real time all of Hillary's emails containing state secrets. Citation needed. I read an awful lot of articles from back then on both sides of the aisle, nobody ever confirmed that anything actually leaked, and the EXHAUSTIVE investigation turned up exactly nothing. But by all means, share your case-redefining source that the FBI missed. I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear about it. I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier in the thread, but here you go. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/donald-trump-china-hacking-clinton-emails/index.htmlYour move. I don't think that the FBI is being honest or transparent. One of the sources of the Daily Caller article is Rep. Gohmert, who is on the House Intelligence Committee. So you believe the FBI is lying to protect the Clintons?
I think that Comey and some of the high level officials who have been fired may have been lying to protect the Clintons. I suspect that the current crop of officials who have been blatantly obstructing all congressional oversight investigations are trying to protect the FBI and DOJ as institutions.
|
On November 08 2018 23:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 23:46 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 23:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 18:57 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 08:59 iamthedave wrote:
Also, if we're prosecuting Hilary for e-mails do we prosecute Trump for using his iphone that the Chinese are listening in on? That New York Times story was horseshit. And besides, you're living in fantasy land if you think that having some purely personal phone calls on an unsecured telephone is in any way comparable to the Chinese literally reading in real time all of Hillary's emails containing state secrets. Citation needed. I read an awful lot of articles from back then on both sides of the aisle, nobody ever confirmed that anything actually leaked, and the EXHAUSTIVE investigation turned up exactly nothing. But by all means, share your case-redefining source that the FBI missed. I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear about it. I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier in the thread, but here you go. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/donald-trump-china-hacking-clinton-emails/index.htmlYour move. I don't think that the FBI is being honest or transparent. One of the sources of the Daily Caller article is Rep. Gohmert, who is on the House Intelligence Committee.
I'm sure Louie Gohmert is more honest and transparent than the FBI. Also there's no reason to credit the Clinton-China hacking story but not the Trump phone surveillance story aside from political bias.
|
I wonder if Sessions can ride Trump to winning his seat back with Trump still pissy at him (Trump can hold a grudge) or if Trump puts it behind him to protect/enlarge their Senate Majority in 2020?
|
On November 09 2018 00:56 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 23:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 23:46 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 23:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 18:57 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 08:59 iamthedave wrote:
Also, if we're prosecuting Hilary for e-mails do we prosecute Trump for using his iphone that the Chinese are listening in on? That New York Times story was horseshit. And besides, you're living in fantasy land if you think that having some purely personal phone calls on an unsecured telephone is in any way comparable to the Chinese literally reading in real time all of Hillary's emails containing state secrets. Citation needed. I read an awful lot of articles from back then on both sides of the aisle, nobody ever confirmed that anything actually leaked, and the EXHAUSTIVE investigation turned up exactly nothing. But by all means, share your case-redefining source that the FBI missed. I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear about it. I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier in the thread, but here you go. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/donald-trump-china-hacking-clinton-emails/index.htmlYour move. I don't think that the FBI is being honest or transparent. One of the sources of the Daily Caller article is Rep. Gohmert, who is on the House Intelligence Committee. I'm sure Louie Gohmert is more honest and transparent than the FBI. Also there's no reason to credit the Clinton-China hacking story but not the Trump phone surveillance story aside from political bias.
Like I said, you are absolutely delusional if you think that the NYT phone surveillance story and the Clinton email story are even in the same league (to the extent that each is true).
And again, take a look at who has been fired and demoted from the FBI over the past year or so. There was clearly something rotten going on over there.
|
I’m sure the president will be blamed for this somehow like he is in all things.
|
On November 09 2018 01:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 00:56 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2018 23:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 23:46 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 23:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 18:57 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 08:59 iamthedave wrote:
Also, if we're prosecuting Hilary for e-mails do we prosecute Trump for using his iphone that the Chinese are listening in on? That New York Times story was horseshit. And besides, you're living in fantasy land if you think that having some purely personal phone calls on an unsecured telephone is in any way comparable to the Chinese literally reading in real time all of Hillary's emails containing state secrets. Citation needed. I read an awful lot of articles from back then on both sides of the aisle, nobody ever confirmed that anything actually leaked, and the EXHAUSTIVE investigation turned up exactly nothing. But by all means, share your case-redefining source that the FBI missed. I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear about it. I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier in the thread, but here you go. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/donald-trump-china-hacking-clinton-emails/index.htmlYour move. I don't think that the FBI is being honest or transparent. One of the sources of the Daily Caller article is Rep. Gohmert, who is on the House Intelligence Committee. I'm sure Louie Gohmert is more honest and transparent than the FBI. Also there's no reason to credit the Clinton-China hacking story but not the Trump phone surveillance story aside from political bias. Like I said, you are absolutely delusional if you think that the NYT phone surveillance story and the Clinton email story are even in the same league (to the extent that each is true). And again, take a look at who has been fired and demoted from the FBI over the past year or so. There was clearly something rotten going on over there.
And again, take a look at who has been fired and demoted from the Trump Administration over the past two years. There was - and is - clearly something rotten going on there.
Quality shitpost right there. But why you're complaining I don't know. This is what you fully support and approve of. This is the hyper-partisan age you love so much. Where exactly do you think it's going to go if neither side backs down? Celebrate, Danglars. Now you can - for once - have a point when you talk about people on the left going too far.
|
Norway28736 Posts
I hope not, I hope and think democrat leaders thoroughly denounce this. That shit is completely unacceptable and this is not Trump's fault. However, I'd be fine with a position of giving some blame to say, Maxine Waters or whatever, as long as Trump also gets his share of blame for violence from his own followers.
|
On November 09 2018 02:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:I hope not, I hope and think democrat leaders thoroughly denounce this. That shit is completely unacceptable and this is not Trump's fault. However, I'd be fine with a position of giving some blame to say, Maxine Waters or whatever, as long as Trump also gets his share of blame for violence from his own followers.
I think this as only a matter of good luck that you’ve decided it’s not Trumps fault. Only a matter of weeks ago, you blamed him (among other things) for an anti-Semitic attack from a vocal Trump hater, despite Trump’s continued support for the nation of Israel and close family relation to Jews. I hope you eventually change your mind.
|
On November 09 2018 02:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 02:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:I hope not, I hope and think democrat leaders thoroughly denounce this. That shit is completely unacceptable and this is not Trump's fault. However, I'd be fine with a position of giving some blame to say, Maxine Waters or whatever, as long as Trump also gets his share of blame for violence from his own followers. I think this as only a matter of good luck that you’ve decided it’s not Trumps fault. Only a matter of weeks ago, you blamed him (among other things) for an anti-Semitic attack from a vocal Trump hater, despite Trump’s continued support for the nation of Israel and close family relation to Jews. I hope you eventually change your mind.
Democrats would rather complain about imaginary attacks against the leftist press than real attacks against conservatives.
|
On November 09 2018 01:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 00:56 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2018 23:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 23:46 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 23:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 18:57 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 08:59 iamthedave wrote:
Also, if we're prosecuting Hilary for e-mails do we prosecute Trump for using his iphone that the Chinese are listening in on? That New York Times story was horseshit. And besides, you're living in fantasy land if you think that having some purely personal phone calls on an unsecured telephone is in any way comparable to the Chinese literally reading in real time all of Hillary's emails containing state secrets. Citation needed. I read an awful lot of articles from back then on both sides of the aisle, nobody ever confirmed that anything actually leaked, and the EXHAUSTIVE investigation turned up exactly nothing. But by all means, share your case-redefining source that the FBI missed. I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear about it. I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier in the thread, but here you go. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/donald-trump-china-hacking-clinton-emails/index.htmlYour move. I don't think that the FBI is being honest or transparent. One of the sources of the Daily Caller article is Rep. Gohmert, who is on the House Intelligence Committee. I'm sure Louie Gohmert is more honest and transparent than the FBI. Also there's no reason to credit the Clinton-China hacking story but not the Trump phone surveillance story aside from political bias. Like I said, you are absolutely delusional if you think that the NYT phone surveillance story and the Clinton email story are even in the same league (to the extent that each is true). And again, take a look at who has been fired and demoted from the FBI over the past year or so. There was clearly something rotten going on over there.
Talking about them being in the same league is a goal post move but your apparent lack of concern for surveillance of his personal phone is hypocritical.
|
On November 09 2018 02:23 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 09 2018 00:56 Doodsmack wrote:On November 08 2018 23:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 23:46 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 23:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 18:57 iamthedave wrote:On November 08 2018 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 08 2018 08:59 iamthedave wrote:
Also, if we're prosecuting Hilary for e-mails do we prosecute Trump for using his iphone that the Chinese are listening in on? That New York Times story was horseshit. And besides, you're living in fantasy land if you think that having some purely personal phone calls on an unsecured telephone is in any way comparable to the Chinese literally reading in real time all of Hillary's emails containing state secrets. Citation needed. I read an awful lot of articles from back then on both sides of the aisle, nobody ever confirmed that anything actually leaked, and the EXHAUSTIVE investigation turned up exactly nothing. But by all means, share your case-redefining source that the FBI missed. I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear about it. I'm pretty sure that I posted this earlier in the thread, but here you go. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/donald-trump-china-hacking-clinton-emails/index.htmlYour move. I don't think that the FBI is being honest or transparent. One of the sources of the Daily Caller article is Rep. Gohmert, who is on the House Intelligence Committee. I'm sure Louie Gohmert is more honest and transparent than the FBI. Also there's no reason to credit the Clinton-China hacking story but not the Trump phone surveillance story aside from political bias. Like I said, you are absolutely delusional if you think that the NYT phone surveillance story and the Clinton email story are even in the same league (to the extent that each is true). And again, take a look at who has been fired and demoted from the FBI over the past year or so. There was clearly something rotten going on over there. Talking about them being in the same league is a goal post move but your apparent lack of concern for surveillance of his personal phone is hypocritical.
I'm not moving the goal posts at all. I consider the NYT story to be practically false and insignificant to the extent that it is true. If you don't understand the difference between foreign actors listening to purely personal phone calls and foreign actors reading the secretary of state's office-related emails, then you have serious problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
