JUSTICE: Jim Acosta Loses Hard Press Pass

This should have been done a long time ago. Jim is belligerent, disrespectful, rude, partisan, and yesterday jerked a microphone back from a young White House Intern hitting her arm in the process.

He doesn't deserve the Hard Press Pass and the Administration was right to revoke it.

«13

Comments

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142
    edited November 8

    @reformed said:
    This should have been done a long time ago. Jim is belligerent, disrespectful, rude, partisan, and yesterday jerked a microphone back from a young White House Intern hitting her arm in the process.

    He doesn't deserve the Hard Press Pass and the Administration was right to revoke it.

    Acosta asks tough, hard questions, but in appropriate ways. The White House's action is baseless and clearly an attempt to silence a journalist.

    The White House's claim that Acosta "laid hands" on the intern is a lie. The video of the incident makes clear that the intern, not Acosta, instigated the very brief contact there was between the two of them. Acosta even said "Pardon me, ma'am," at one point in his interaction with the intern.

    The intern was doing her job! NO blame to her! But so was Acosta. The White House's suggestion of physical malfeasance on Acosta's part is a lie.


    EDIT: And now there's evidence that last night, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders shared a doctored version of the video of the incident in order to back up her false claim about Acosta's interaction with the intern. The version she chose to share edited out Acosta's "Pardon me, ma'am," and changed the speed of the video at certain points to exaggerate the encounter for effect. The video she shared was also pushed by an editor at the conspiracy theorist haven named "Infowars.com."

    Sanders' action here is OBVIOUSLY over the line, don't you agree, reformed?

    Post edited by Bill_Coley on
  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,440

    @reformed said:
    This should have been done a long time ago. Jim is belligerent, disrespectful, rude, partisan...

    What a perfect description of your President Trump. The President put that girl in a bad position. He continues to engage Acosta in verbal exchanges. See the video clip. Sad CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:
    This should have been done a long time ago. Jim is belligerent, disrespectful, rude, partisan, and yesterday jerked a microphone back from a young White House Intern hitting her arm in the process.

    He doesn't deserve the Hard Press Pass and the Administration was right to revoke it.

    Acosta asks tough, hard questions, but in appropriate ways. The White House's action is baseless and clearly an attempt to silence a journalist.

    He does not ask questions in appropriate ways. He badgers after his question has been answered and the next journalist is up. Yesterday he JERKED a microphone forcefully from an intern.

    The White House's claim that Acosta "laid hands" on the intern is a lie. The video of the incident makes clear that the intern, not Acosta, instigated the very brief contact there was between the two of them. Acosta even said "Pardon me, ma'am," at one point in his interaction with the intern.

    She went to grab the microphone because it was no longer Acosta's turn. Acosta was the only reporter who forcefully jerked it from the intern and hit her arm in the process. This is not a lie. I watched it live and I have watched replay after replay. It was extremely rude of Acosta.

    The intern was doing her job! NO blame to her! But so was Acosta. The White House's suggestion of physical malfeasance on Acosta's part is a lie.

    It is not the job of a reporter to be rude and belligerent and realize that they are not getting any more questions answered. It is not the job of a reporter to jerk a microphone back from an intern. So no, he was not doing his job.


    EDIT: And now there's evidence that last night, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders shared a doctored version of the video of the incident in order to back up her false claim about Acosta's interaction with the intern. The version she chose to share edited out Acosta's "Pardon me, ma'am," and changed the speed of the video at certain points to exaggerate the encounter for effect. The video she shared was also pushed by an editor at the conspiracy theorist haven named "Infowars.com."

    Sanders' action here is OBVIOUSLY over the line, don't you agree, reformed?

    No I don't agree. You don't have to see the edited video to come to the exact same conclusion and the video edited did NOT distort any facts.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:
    This should have been done a long time ago. Jim is belligerent, disrespectful, rude, partisan...

    What a perfect description of your President Trump. The President put that girl in a bad position. He continues to engage Acosta in verbal exchanges. See the video clip. Sad CM

    Acosta was the only one in the wrong here. Not respecting the position of the President, not releasing the microphone, hitting the girl. This is not the President's doing. Acosta was already told to stop and he kept going. He is the only one to blame for this incident.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142

    @reformed said:
    He does not ask questions in appropriate ways. He badgers after his question has been answered and the next journalist is up. Yesterday he JERKED a microphone forcefully from an intern.

    You're welcome to your views, but such views cannot be the basis of hard pass removals.

    Your claim that he "JERKED a microphone forcefully from an intern" is false. Watch the video again (0:26-0:30 contains the incident). FROM THE INSTANT SHE FIRST TOUCHES THE MICROPHONE AS IT'S IN ACOSTA'S HAND, the mic moves in one direction: TOWARD the intern. Yes, BEFORE the intern puts her hand on the mic, Acosta moves it away from her, but from the instant she grasps it forward, AT NO TIME does the mic move away from her. Therefore, Acosta couldn't possibly have "JERKED" it "away" from her, "forcefully" or otherwise.

    It's also true that Acosta does not release the mic to the intern, but that's not your claim. Your claim is that he "JERKED" it from her "forcefully." That claim is false.

    She went to grab the microphone because it was no longer Acosta's turn. Acosta was the only reporter who forcefully jerked it from the intern and hit her arm in the process. This is not a lie. I watched it live and I have watched replay after replay. It was extremely rude of Acosta.

    Your claim that he "forcefully jerked it from the intern" is false.

    Your claim that Acosta "hit her arm in the process" is misleading because it suggests that the contact between his arm and the intern's was the result of his "jerking" the microphone away. 1) He didn't "jerk" the microphone away; 2) The contact between their arms was small, incidental, and between their respective LEFT arms (Acosta held the mic in his right hand). In addition, the contact occurred as the intern's reach for the mic made contact with Acosta's left wrist, which was extended due to the gesture he was in the process of making when she initiated her reach for the mic.

    It is not the job of a reporter to be rude and belligerent and realize that they are not getting any more questions answered. It is not the job of a reporter to jerk a microphone back from an intern. So no, he was not doing his job.

    You're welcome to your view of a reporter's "job," but your claim that Acosta jerked the microphone from the intern is false.

    No I don't agree. You don't have to see the edited video to come to the exact same conclusion and the video edited did NOT distort any facts.

    We disagree as to whether government officials should use doctored media.

    We disagree strongly as to whether removing from the video Acosta's VERY audible "Pardon me, ma'am" spoken to the intern distorts the scene. In my view, those words matter greatly to understanding his attitude and actions.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:
    He does not ask questions in appropriate ways. He badgers after his question has been answered and the next journalist is up. Yesterday he JERKED a microphone forcefully from an intern.

    You're welcome to your views, but such views cannot be the basis of hard pass removals.

    Your claim that he "JERKED a microphone forcefully from an intern" is false. Watch the video again (0:26-0:30 contains the incident). FROM THE INSTANT SHE FIRST TOUCHES THE MICROPHONE AS IT'S IN ACOSTA'S HAND, the mic moves in one direction: TOWARD the intern. Yes, BEFORE the intern puts her hand on the mic, Acosta moves it away from her, but from the instant she grasps it forward, AT NO TIME does the mic move away from her. Therefore, Acosta couldn't possibly have "JERKED" it "away" from her, "forcefully" or otherwise.

    Bill that is absurd. Not sure what video you are watching.

    It's also true that Acosta does not release the mic to the intern, but that's not your claim. Your claim is that he "JERKED" it from her "forcefully." That claim is false.

    It is absolutely true. I just watched it again.

    She went to grab the microphone because it was no longer Acosta's turn. Acosta was the only reporter who forcefully jerked it from the intern and hit her arm in the process. This is not a lie. I watched it live and I have watched replay after replay. It was extremely rude of Acosta.

    Your claim that he "forcefully jerked it from the intern" is false.

    No, it is true. Watch it again you partisan hack. You should be ashamed of yourself that your hatred is so strong for Trump that you are ok with this behavior.

    Your claim that Acosta "hit her arm in the process" is misleading because it suggests that the contact between his arm and the intern's was the result of his "jerking" the microphone away. 1) He didn't "jerk" the microphone away; 2) The contact between their arms was small, incidental, and between their respective LEFT arms (Acosta held the mic in his right hand). In addition, the contact occurred as the intern's reach for the mic made contact with Acosta's left wrist, which was extended due to the gesture he was in the process of making when she initiated her reach for the mic.

    1. He did jerk it. CLEARLY. 2. It was still contact, more forceful than it needed to be if he had just followed protocol.

    It is not the job of a reporter to be rude and belligerent and realize that they are not getting any more questions answered. It is not the job of a reporter to jerk a microphone back from an intern. So no, he was not doing his job.

    You're welcome to your view of a reporter's "job," but your claim that Acosta jerked the microphone from the intern is false.

    Except it's not.

    No I don't agree. You don't have to see the edited video to come to the exact same conclusion and the video edited did NOT distort any facts.

    We disagree as to whether government officials should use doctored media.

    It in no way changed what happened and accurately conveyed the situation.

    We disagree strongly as to whether removing from the video Acosta's VERY audible "Pardon me, ma'am" spoken to the intern distorts the scene. In my view, those words matter greatly to understanding his attitude and actions.

    Yeah Pardon me ma'am I just jerked this away from you forcefully. Good grief.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,440

    Trump got what he wanted. No further discussion is needed. CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142

    @reformed said:
    Bill that is absurd. Not sure what video you are watching.

    You know EXACTLY what video I'm watching, reformed. I provided a link to it in my previous post, and indicated that the incident in question happened in the 0:26-0:30 window of the video. Here is that section from my previous post (note the link embedded in the phrase "Watch the video again"):

    • Your claim that he "JERKED a microphone forcefully from an intern" is false. Watch the video again (0:26-0:30 contains the incident). FROM THE INSTANT SHE FIRST TOUCHES THE MICROPHONE AS IT'S IN ACOSTA'S HAND, the mic moves in one direction: TOWARD the intern. Yes, BEFORE the intern puts her hand on the mic, Acosta moves it away from her, but from the instant she grasps it forward, AT NO TIME does the mic move away from her. Therefore, Acosta couldn't possibly have "JERKED" it "away" from her, "forcefully" or otherwise.

    Please provide a link to the video YOU'RE watching.

    It is absolutely true. I just watched it again.

    The video is clear. Your claim that Acosta "jerked" the mic from the intern is false. Again, provide a link to the video YOU'RE watching and identify the time window in the video during which you believe Acosta jerks the mic from her hand.

    No, it is true. Watch it again you partisan hack. You should be ashamed of yourself that your hatred is so strong for Trump that you are ok with this behavior.

    However partisan or hateful my hackiness, I am still able to view and correctly discern the events in the video of the exchange between Acosta and the White House intern. Your claim that Acosta "jerked" the mic from her is false. Please provide a link to the video YOU'RE watching and identify the time window in the video during which you believe Acosta jerks the mic from her hand.

    1. He did jerk it. CLEARLY. 2. It was still contact, more forceful than it needed to be if he had just followed protocol.

    The video is clear and beyond debate. Acosta did NOT jerk the mic from the intern's hand. Your claim to the contrary is false. The physical contact between them was brief, minor, and only occurred at all because the intern reached into Acosta's personal space, which initiated the touch. Notice that Acosta is making a pointing gesture with his left hand at the time the intern reaches into his space, a gesture he continues once the intern lets go of the mic. Your claim is false.

    Yeah Pardon me ma'am I just jerked this away from you forcefully. Good grief.

    Your claim is false. Please provide a link to the video YOU'RE watching and identify the time window in the video during which you believe Acosta jerks the mic from her hand.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:
    Bill that is absurd. Not sure what video you are watching.

    You know EXACTLY what video I'm watching, reformed. I provided a link to it in my previous post, and indicated that the incident in question happened in the 0:26-0:30 window of the video. Here is that section from my previous post (note the link embedded in the phrase "Watch the video again"):

    • Your claim that he "JERKED a microphone forcefully from an intern" is false. Watch the video again (0:26-0:30 contains the incident). FROM THE INSTANT SHE FIRST TOUCHES THE MICROPHONE AS IT'S IN ACOSTA'S HAND, the mic moves in one direction: TOWARD the intern. Yes, BEFORE the intern puts her hand on the mic, Acosta moves it away from her, but from the instant she grasps it forward, AT NO TIME does the mic move away from her. Therefore, Acosta couldn't possibly have "JERKED" it "away" from her, "forcefully" or otherwise.

    Please provide a link to the video YOU'RE watching.

    It is absolutely true. I just watched it again.

    The video is clear. Your claim that Acosta "jerked" the mic from the intern is false. Again, provide a link to the video YOU'RE watching and identify the time window in the video during which you believe Acosta jerks the mic from her hand.

    No, it is true. Watch it again you partisan hack. You should be ashamed of yourself that your hatred is so strong for Trump that you are ok with this behavior.

    However partisan or hateful my hackiness, I am still able to view and correctly discern the events in the video of the exchange between Acosta and the White House intern. Your claim that Acosta "jerked" the mic from her is false. Please provide a link to the video YOU'RE watching and identify the time window in the video during which you believe Acosta jerks the mic from her hand.

    1. He did jerk it. CLEARLY. 2. It was still contact, more forceful than it needed to be if he had just followed protocol.

    The video is clear and beyond debate. Acosta did NOT jerk the mic from the intern's hand. Your claim to the contrary is false. The physical contact between them was brief, minor, and only occurred at all because the intern reached into Acosta's personal space, which initiated the touch. Notice that Acosta is making a pointing gesture with his left hand at the time the intern reaches into his space, a gesture he continues once the intern lets go of the mic. Your claim is false.

    Yeah Pardon me ma'am I just jerked this away from you forcefully. Good grief.

    Your claim is false. Please provide a link to the video YOU'RE watching and identify the time window in the video during which you believe Acosta jerks the mic from her hand.

    If you honestly sit there and say he didn't jerk the mic back you are an outright liar or mentally incompetent and there is nothing further to discuss on the issue.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142

    @reformed said:

    If you honestly sit there and say he didn't jerk the mic back you are an outright liar or mentally incompetent and there is nothing further to discuss on the issue.

    I am indeed "honestly" sitting here and asserting that Acosta didn't jerk the mic from the intern. Just as I am "honestly" sitting here and asking you to provide a link to the video of the incident YOU'RE watching, along with a report as to the specific time window in the video that you believe proves your claim. I can't help but point out that while your post includes your standard issue dismissive name calling, it does NOT provide such a link.

    This is VERY simple, reformed. I gave you the link the video I watched. I identified for you a specific time window to review. On the basis of that time window in that video I stand by my claim. Now simply return the favor.

    You've made a bold claim, one that I contend is false. Don't call me names - that's pointless and does not prove your point. Give me a link and a time window.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:

    If you honestly sit there and say he didn't jerk the mic back you are an outright liar or mentally incompetent and there is nothing further to discuss on the issue.

    I am indeed "honestly" sitting here and asserting that Acosta didn't jerk the mic from the intern. Just as I am "honestly" sitting here and asking you to provide a link to the video of the incident YOU'RE watching, along with a report as to the specific time window in the video that you believe proves your claim. I can't help but point out that while your post includes your standard issue dismissive name calling, it does NOT provide such a link.

    Watching the C-Span footage. You can search through it yourself to get the timestamp.

    This is VERY simple, reformed. I gave you the link the video I watched. I identified for you a specific time window to review. On the basis of that time window in that video I stand by my claim. Now simply return the favor.

    You've made a bold claim, one that I contend is false. Don't call me names - that's pointless and does not prove your point. Give me a link and a time window.

    Not calling you a name. Stating fact.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142

    @reformed said:
    Watching the C-Span footage. You can search through it yourself to get the timestamp.

    • Since you won't provide a link to the video you're watching, I will: HERE.

    • Since you won't provide the applicable time window in the video you're watching, I will: Approx. 1:34-1:38.

    And as I expected, the C-SPAN video proves my point as clearly as the video to which I previously linked (which only makes sense since they're videos of the same incident!) Acosta NEVER "jerks" the microphone from the hand of the intern. She reaches for it, and moves it a bit in her direction, but Acosta never surrenders control of the mic and, critically, AT NO POINT WHILE THE INTERN'S HAND IS ON IT, moves the mic back toward himself. Those indisputable facts make it impossible for him to have "jerked" the mic from the intern, "forcefully" or otherwise.

    As I have stated multiple times: Your claim is false.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:
    Watching the C-Span footage. You can search through it yourself to get the timestamp.

    • Since you won't provide a link to the video you're watching, I will: HERE.

    • Since you won't provide the applicable time window in the video you're watching, I will: Approx. 1:34-1:38.

    And as I expected, the C-SPAN video proves my point as clearly as the video to which I previously linked (which only makes sense since they're videos of the same incident!) Acosta NEVER "jerks" the microphone from the hand of the intern. She reaches for it, and moves it a bit in her direction, but Acosta never surrenders control of the mic and, critically, AT NO POINT WHILE THE INTERN'S HAND IS ON IT, moves the mic back toward himself. Those indisputable facts make it impossible for him to have "jerked" the mic from the intern, "forcefully" or otherwise.

    As I have stated multiple times: Your claim is false.

    Liar Liar

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142

    @reformed said:

    Liar Liar

    As you know from watching the video - yours or mine - the screen grab you provide is from a point in the video AT THE INSTANT the intern's hand reaches the mic. The screen grab DOES NOT show any "jerking" motion.

    Now, here's a series of screen grabs FROM THE SAME VIDEO and in chronological order.






    1. Notice where Acosta's hand is as the intern reaches for the mic.
    2. Notice where his hand is when she completes her grip on the mic.
    3. And notice the direction of the mic's movement AFTER she grabs the mic. THE MIC MOVES TOWARD HER, NOT AWAY FROM HER!

    How could Acosta have "JERKED" it "forcefully" from the intern when the mic moved toward her not away from her until she let it go?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:

    Liar Liar

    As you know from watching the video - yours or mine - the screen grab you provide is from a point in the video AT THE INSTANT the intern's hand reaches the mic. The screen grab DOES NOT show any "jerking" motion.

    Now, here's a series of screen grabs FROM THE SAME VIDEO and in chronological order.






    1. Notice where Acosta's hand is as the intern reaches for the mic.
    2. Notice where his hand is when she completes her grip on the mic.
    3. And notice the direction of the mic's movement AFTER she grabs the mic. THE MIC MOVES TOWARD HER, NOT AWAY FROM HER!

    How could Acosta have "JERKED" it "forcefully" from the intern when the mic moved toward her not away from her until she let it go?

    Actually your screenshots and the video show what I have been saying all along. You are delusional and your man-crush, Jim Acosta, is a bully.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142

    @reformed said:

    Actually your screenshots and the video show what I have been saying all along. You are delusional and your man-crush, Jim Acosta, is a bully.

    Please answer my question directly: How could Acosta have "JERKED" the microphone "forcefully" FROM the intern when the mic moved TOWARD her not away from her until she let it go?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,187
    edited November 9

    @Bill_Coley said:
    And as I expected, the C-SPAN video proves my point as clearly as the video to which I previously linked (which only makes sense since they're videos of the same incident!) Acosta NEVER "jerks" the microphone from the hand of the intern. She reaches for it, and moves it a bit in her direction, but Acosta never surrenders control of the mic ....

    And there is the problem !! His turn of asking questions was over and - if he had conducted himself properly (!!) - he would have returned the mic to the intern when the lady reached to get it in order to pass it on to the next journalist.

    This CNN "journalist" actually tried to have a discussion and actually thought he could misuse the opportunity for journalists to ask one question + one followup question to conduct and investigatory accusative discussion. Since he obviously is not able (for whatever reason) to follow proper conduct according to the rules, he should not be accredited for that particular journalist post.

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:

    Actually your screenshots and the video show what I have been saying all along. You are delusional and your man-crush, Jim Acosta, is a bully.

    Please answer my question directly: How could Acosta have "JERKED" the microphone "forcefully" FROM the intern when the mic moved TOWARD her not away from her until she let it go?

    Because that's not what the video shows.

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Bill_Coley said:
    And as I expected, the C-SPAN video proves my point as clearly as the video to which I previously linked (which only makes sense since they're videos of the same incident!) Acosta NEVER "jerks" the microphone from the hand of the intern. She reaches for it, and moves it a bit in her direction, but Acosta never surrenders control of the mic ....

    And there is the problem !! His turn of asking questions was over and - if he had conducted himself properly (!!) - he would have returned the mic to the intern when the lady reached to get it in order to pass it on to the next journalist.

    This CNN "journalist" actually tried to have a discussion and actually thought he could misuse the opportunity for journalists to ask one question + one followup question to conduct and investigatory accusative discussion. Since he obviously is not able (for whatever reason) to follow proper conduct according to the rules, he should not be accredited for that particular journalist post.

    Exactly. And @Wolfgang as someone who doesn't live here and can probably be more objective. Do you think it looked like in the video he jerked the microphone back as she tried to take it?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142
    edited November 9

    @reformed said:
    Exactly. And @Wolfgang as someone who doesn't live here and can probably be more objective. Do you think it looked like in the video he jerked the microphone back as she tried to take it?

    A few points:
    1. If you want Wolfgang's feedback, you should ask him about your claim in full, not just in part. Your original claim was not only that Acosta "JERKED" the microphone from the intern, but that he "JERKED" it "forcefully" from the intern. To wit, from your previous posts... (emphasis added)

    • "Yesterday he JERKED a microphone forcefully from an intern."
    • "She went to grab the microphone because it was no longer Acosta's turn. Acosta was the only reporter who forcefully jerked it from the intern and hit her arm in the process."
    • "Yeah Pardon me ma'am I just jerked this away from you forcefully."

    So, Wolfgang, did Acosta "forcefully" jerk the mic from the reporter as she tried to take it?

    1. We've been posting past each other in our exchange in a consequential way, and I readily acknowledge my contribution to the miscommunication. To my use of the phrase, for Acosta to have jerked the mic back from the intern means he removed it from her possession, something Acosta clearly does not do. In your latest phrasing of your claim, you add the detail that you believe Acosta's alleged microphone jerking happened "as (the intern) tried to take it." Until now, I did not understand that you be your claim.
    2. So did Acosta "forcefully" jerk the mic away from the intern as she reached for it? Clearly not. As she reached into his personal space, he moved the mic perhaps six or eight inches to his right - from the center of his sternum to a place about halfway to his right armpit. His motion in doing so was smooth and natural, in no way jerky or forceful.
    3. Your request for Wolfgang's viewpoint on the grounds that he "doesn't live here and can probably be more objective" appears to me to be in great tension with your oft-stated view that those who don't live in this country should "mind their own business:"
    • There was this: "Go away, you know nothing and have no bearing on this country. Mind your own business."
    • And this: "You have indicated you are not American so mind your own business."
    • And this: "Seriously, if you aren't American mind your own business."
    • And this: "If you don't live in America mind your own business."

    So is it your view that those who don't live in the US "can probably be more objective," or that they should "mind their own business"? Or is your view those who don't live in the US "can probably be more objective" as long as you sense they might agree with you?

    Post edited by Bill_Coley on
  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,187

    @reformed said:
    Exactly. And @Wolfgang as someone who doesn't live here and can probably be more objective. Do you think it looked like in the video he jerked the microphone back as she tried to take it?

    Actually, as for me it doesn't matter how someone defines "jerked" ... the point is that the dude if he had proper manners and if he had adhered to regulations for press conferences which are known to accredited journalists, he would have returned the microphone already a few statements earlier to the lady so she would not even have had to try and take it !!! Thus, in a sense, he sort of "jerked the microphone back" and acted unprofessionally and "earned" himself some words by the president which were strong but pretty much on target

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,187

    @Bill_Coley said:
    So, Wolfgang, did Acosta "forcefully" jerk the mic from the reporter as she tried to take it?

    Well, in a sense, "yes, he did" ...see above reply to @reformed's post.

    The "journalist/reporter" certainly did not behave as a gentlemen would behave toward a woman requesting that he return the microphone because it was a different journalist's turn to ask a question. By refusing to adhere to the regulations common to press conferences and known to accredited journalists, he already put himself "out of bounds", in particular because from his very first words, he had obviously no intent to really ask a question but to have an argument and discussion / "fight" with the president ... well, he picked the fight and made a fool of himself to anyone looking on a bit objectively and rightfully lost his accreditation.

    All the talk about whether this guy "jerked", "touched", "not jerked", "not touched" is loony tunes in my opinion and typical side tracking of the simple real issue ...

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142

    @Wolfgang said:

    Actually, as for me it doesn't matter how someone defines "jerked" ... the point is that the dude if he had proper manners and if he had adhered to regulations for press conferences which are known to accredited journalists, he would have returned the microphone already a few statements earlier to the lady so she would not even have had to try and take it !!! Thus, in a sense, he sort of "jerked the microphone back" and acted unprofessionally and "earned" himself some words by the president which were strong but pretty much on target

    @Wolfgang said:
    Well, in a sense, "yes, he did" ...see above reply to @reformed's post.

    The "journalist/reporter" certainly did not behave as a gentlemen would behave toward a woman requesting that he return the microphone because it was a different journalist's turn to ask a question. By refusing to adhere to the regulations common to press conferences and known to accredited journalists, he already put himself "out of bounds", in particular because from his very first words, he had obviously no intent to really ask a question but to have an argument and discussion / "fight" with the president ... well, he picked the fight and made a fool of himself to anyone looking on a bit objectively and rightfully lost his accreditation.

    All the talk about whether this guy "jerked", "touched", "not jerked", "not touched" is loony tunes in my opinion and typical side tracking of the simple real issue ...

    With all due respect, Wolfgang, your responses evade the question by redefining it. In no sense of the phrase as used in this thread can "jerking" a microphone "forcefully" from someone be defined as not adhering to press conference "regulations," or not having "proper manners." You're welcome to your "looney tunes" view of the issue, but as raised and asked about in this exchange, the forceful jerking of a microphone is clearly a physical motion, one about which your responses offer no substantive feedback.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    Actually, as for me it doesn't matter how someone defines "jerked" ... the point is that the dude if he had proper manners and if he had adhered to regulations for press conferences which are known to accredited journalists, he would have returned the microphone already a few statements earlier to the lady so she would not even have had to try and take it !!! Thus, in a sense, he sort of "jerked the microphone back" and acted unprofessionally and "earned" himself some words by the president which were strong but pretty much on target

    @Wolfgang said:
    Well, in a sense, "yes, he did" ...see above reply to @reformed's post.

    The "journalist/reporter" certainly did not behave as a gentlemen would behave toward a woman requesting that he return the microphone because it was a different journalist's turn to ask a question. By refusing to adhere to the regulations common to press conferences and known to accredited journalists, he already put himself "out of bounds", in particular because from his very first words, he had obviously no intent to really ask a question but to have an argument and discussion / "fight" with the president ... well, he picked the fight and made a fool of himself to anyone looking on a bit objectively and rightfully lost his accreditation.

    All the talk about whether this guy "jerked", "touched", "not jerked", "not touched" is loony tunes in my opinion and typical side tracking of the simple real issue ...

    With all due respect, Wolfgang, your responses evade the question by redefining it. In no sense of the phrase as used in this thread can "jerking" a microphone "forcefully" from someone be defined as not adhering to press conference "regulations," or not having "proper manners." You're welcome to your "looney tunes" view of the issue, but as raised and asked about in this exchange, the forceful jerking of a microphone is clearly a physical motion, one about which your responses offer no substantive feedback.

    Actually I believe he said "Yes, he did"

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142

    @reformed said:

    Actually I believe he said "Yes, he did"

    Actually, I believe he said, (emphasis added)

    "Well, in a sense, "yes, he did" ...see above reply to @reformed's post."

    And in his reply to your post, in what "sense" did Wolfgang post about what "(Acosta) did"? (emphasis added)

    "Actually, as for me it doesn't matter how someone defines "jerked" ... the point is that the dude if he had proper manners and if he had adhered to regulations for press conferences which are known to accredited journalists, he would have returned the microphone already a few statements earlier to the lady so she would not even have had to try and take it!!! Thus, in a sense, he sort of "jerked the microphone back" and acted unprofessionally and "earned" himself some words by the president which were strong but pretty much on target.

    So the "sense" in which Wolfgang believes Acosta "sort of 'jerked the microphone back'" is that he didn't exhibit "proper manners" and didn't adhere to "regulations for press conferences." That's NOT the sense in which you made your claim, reformed.


    You didn't respond to my question about CD posters who don't live in the US, so I'll repeat it: Given your oft-stated view that posters who do not live in the US should "mind their own business," (see the links I provided in my last post) is it your view that those who don't live in the US "can probably be more objective," (as in THIS POST) or that they should "mind their own business"? Or is your view those who don't live in the US "can probably be more objective" as long as you sense they might agree with you?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:

    Actually I believe he said "Yes, he did"

    Actually, I believe he said, (emphasis added)

    "Well, in a sense, "yes, he did" ...see above reply to @reformed's post."

    And in his reply to your post, in what "sense" did Wolfgang post about what "(Acosta) did"? (emphasis added)

    "Actually, as for me it doesn't matter how someone defines "jerked" ... the point is that the dude if he had proper manners and if he had adhered to regulations for press conferences which are known to accredited journalists, he would have returned the microphone already a few statements earlier to the lady so she would not even have had to try and take it!!! Thus, in a sense, he sort of "jerked the microphone back" and acted unprofessionally and "earned" himself some words by the president which were strong but pretty much on target.

    So the "sense" in which Wolfgang believes Acosta "sort of 'jerked the microphone back'" is that he didn't exhibit "proper manners" and didn't adhere to "regulations for press conferences." That's NOT the sense in which you made your claim, reformed.


    You didn't respond to my question about CD posters who don't live in the US, so I'll repeat it: Given your oft-stated view that posters who do not live in the US should "mind their own business," (see the links I provided in my last post) is it your view that those who don't live in the US "can probably be more objective," (as in THIS POST) or that they should "mind their own business"? Or is your view those who don't live in the US "can probably be more objective" as long as you sense they might agree with you?

    Don't be an idiot. That's when they are trying to dictate American policy. That is not the same thing Bill.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,187

    @Bill_Coley said:
    With all due respect, Wolfgang, your responses evade the question by redefining it.

    The question about "jerking" or "not jerking" is in my opinion irrelevant to the issue. I thought I had already made that clear.

    In no sense of the phrase as used in this thread can "jerking" a microphone "forcefully" from someone be defined as not adhering to press conference "regulations," or not having "proper manners."

    As for this issue, I don't care about "jerking" whether "forcefully" or "not forcefully" ... and I consider concentrating on the "jerking" a move to side track the simple real issue: The dude did not behave as he should have in line with his accreditation and the rules in effect for press conferences.

    You're welcome to your "looney tunes" view of the issue, but as raised and asked about in this exchange, the forceful jerking of a microphone is clearly a physical motion, one about which your responses offer no substantive feedback.

    See above ... I trust that I have now pointed out what I consider the real issue to be ... and it certainly is NOT about a question whether or not this guy "jerked" or "did not jerk"

    The tactics of the mainstream media and what you try and push to the front reminds me of how the media over here also act lately ....Not long ago, there was a murder committed by yet another "refugee" or several "refugees", and shortly thereafter a larger number of native citizens of the city demonstrated against this murder and the current "refugee" politics and such more and more frequent incidents as this murder. What did the mainstream media report: There were "nationalist", "Nazis" demonstrating in town and causing trouble ... but no real word about the murder committed by "refugees". They deemed the demonstration against the murder to be the really bad thing and seemingly did not consider the murder itself to be the main problem.

    Same here ... don't be blinded and diverted to take Acosta's side of "I didn't jerk"; instead recognize what the real Acosta problem was. But then, nowadays in the USA,, anything seems to go as long as it is against Trump ... I sometimes wonder how many of the blinded US public (mainly those influenced by the Democrat party HATE POLITICS) would applaud far worse and even deadly crimes against the President ...

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,440
    edited November 9

    @reformed said:

    Don't be an idiot. That's when they are trying to dictate American policy. That is not the same thing Bill.

    Reformed,
    Is it so hard to be respectful and kind? Your rudeness and name-calling speak so loudly your apparent factual points are drowned out because of your disrespect and name calling of fellow CD Users. This takes away from the renewal efforts in moving forward. If you are planning to go elsewhere from CD, do you have to try breaking all the china before you do? Be kind. Be better than you feel like being. CM

    Post edited by C_M_ on
  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    Don't be an idiot. That's when they are trying to dictate American policy. That is not the same thing Bill.

    Reformed,
    Is it so hard to be respectful and kind? Your rudeness and name-calling speak so loudly your apparent factual points are drowned out because of your disrespect and name calling of fellow CD Users. This takes away from the renewal efforts in moving forward. If you are planning to go else from CD, do you have to break all the china before you do? Be kind. Be better than you feel like being. CM

    Was I talking to you? Mother?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,142

    @Wolfgang said:
    The question about "jerking" or "not jerking" is in my opinion irrelevant to the issue. I thought I had already made that clear.
    As for this issue, I don't care about "jerking" whether "forcefully" or "not forcefully" ... and I consider concentrating on the "jerking" a move to side track the simple real issue: The dude did not behave as he should have in line with his accreditation and the rules in effect for press conferences.
    See above ... I trust that I have now pointed out what I consider the real issue to be ... and it certainly is NOT about a question whether or not this guy "jerked" or "did not jerk"

    I certainly took this to be your response to reformed's question, Wolfgang - and I welcome you, of course, to your view. But the fact remains reformed didn't ask for your views about the reporter's manners or adherence to "regulations." He asked about what he deemed a physical move of the reporter's "forceful" "jerking" of the microphone from the intern. I accept that you believe such to be an irrelevant matter, but it IS what he asked about, and it HAS BEEN the subject of the current exchange.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 1,885

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    The question about "jerking" or "not jerking" is in my opinion irrelevant to the issue. I thought I had already made that clear.
    As for this issue, I don't care about "jerking" whether "forcefully" or "not forcefully" ... and I consider concentrating on the "jerking" a move to side track the simple real issue: The dude did not behave as he should have in line with his accreditation and the rules in effect for press conferences.
    See above ... I trust that I have now pointed out what I consider the real issue to be ... and it certainly is NOT about a question whether or not this guy "jerked" or "did not jerk"

    I certainly took this to be your response to reformed's question, Wolfgang - and I welcome you, of course, to your view. But the fact remains reformed didn't ask for your views about the reporter's manners or adherence to "regulations." He asked about what he deemed a physical move of the reporter's "forceful" "jerking" of the microphone from the intern. I accept that you believe such to be an irrelevant matter, but it IS what he asked about, and it HAS BEEN the subject of the current exchange.

    And I would still like to know the opinon @Wolfgang even though I know you think it is not relevant to the overall problem of Jim Acosta (which I agree).

Sign In or Register to comment.