Trump watch (2)

The video is a classic example of confirmation bias. If you believe she was assaulted, you'll see it. Etc. It's little different to what Corey Lewandowski did, if you are slanted as such, you say assault.

I'm sure the FCC can waste time on a law suit, but CNN are still able to report from the WH and it is a suspension, so I struggle to see how they will do anything but enrich a bunch of lawyers and divide an already divided political bases even further. It's not like the Trump Administration has wiretapped media opponents or such things.

I might suggest that the FCC have bigger fish to fry as well. If CNN were blanket banned, the case would be stronger.

Perhaps Acosta saying I was out of line would put a line under this mess. I've become the story, rather than reporting on it. Would take the wind from Trumps sails wouldn't it?

You really think Acosta apologising would take the wind out of Trump's sails? I could only see that emboldening Trump.
 
Hmmm .... maybe. Seems to me that Acosta IS controversial, and loves being so. But Trump is reaping what he sows. Essentially, Trump is like a spoilt kid who yells 'bully' whenever anyone is beastly to him. He doesn't like the press not fawning over him and has even managed to annoy Fox recently. He's alienated the Fourth Estate, but still expects to be treated like some untouchable deity by them.

Most politicians find it easy to deal with 'difficult' reporters, but Trump's response was to ban Acosta. OK, only from the White House, but that's where a huge percentage of presidential outpourings happen. It's censorship.

Quite obviously I can't stand Trump (his politics, the way he acts as president, his racism and misogyny, his lying etc) and that has undoubtedly clouded my views of how he interacts with people, including the press. Happy to read anything that makes him sound more human, caring and reasonable, but won't hold my breath.

People that like him wouldn't make the argument that he is human, caring and reasonable. People that like him would make the argument that he's a brash, arrogant American.

You can't stand Trump for the very same reason so many people love him. In that respect, he is a unique individual.
 
He is, and you're right. He doesn't give a toss what people think of him, as long as enough of them can be persuaded to vote for him.

Do you think he'll get a second term?

Also, interesting news about Ruth Bader Ginsberg - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46142226

You wonder what the US will look like in 10/15 years if he is able to shoehorn another hard-righter into the Supreme Court (not that I know anything about US politics).
 
Do you think he'll get a second term?

Also, interesting news about Ruth Bader Ginsberg - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46142226

You wonder what the US will look like in 10/15 years if he is able to shoehorn another hard-righter into the Supreme Court (not that I know anything about US politics).

Sadly I think he will get a 2nd term.

In terms of the Supreme Court I fully expect a challenge to abortion rights.
 
You really think Acosta apologising would take the wind out of Trump's sails? I could only see that emboldening Trump.
No. But it would help to slow down some of the other vitriol and show a deal of respect and understanding to the intern - let's face it, if Trump did that to a woman, the press would pee their pants with anger. I suspect he'll just double down on his victimhood.

Hmmm .... maybe. Seems to me that Acosta IS controversial, and loves being so. But Trump is reaping what he sows. Essentially, Trump is like a spoilt kid who yells 'bully' whenever anyone is beastly to him. He doesn't like the press not fawning over him and has even managed to annoy Fox recently. He's alienated the Fourth Estate, but still expects to be treated like some untouchable deity by them.

Most politicians find it easy to deal with 'difficult' reporters, but Trump's response was to ban Acosta. OK, only from the White House, but that's where a huge percentage of presidential outpourings happen. It's censorship.

Quite obviously I can't stand Trump (his politics, the way he acts as president, his racism and misogyny, his lying etc) and that has undoubtedly clouded my views of how he interacts with people, including the press. Happy to read anything that makes him sound more human, caring and reasonable, but won't hold my breath.
And likewise, the media expect to treated the same way, then the make stuff up or don't fact check the basics. Both sides, plus the Dems, have to take a long hard look at themselves and tone it down. The media cannot sit in a tower of self righteous outrage.

Acosta has been acting like that for months - he made an a**e of himself when Trump visited the UK. He bleats about Trump being immature, but just apes the behaviour. Him crying wolf is a hoot! An absolute hoot.

Out of interest. What do you think about CNNs efforts to get people like InfoWars (morons) removed from Social Media platforms? Seeing as they care so much about freedom of speech at the moment, they have an unsavoury obsession over Alex Jones (stupid idiot) and removing his freedom of speech from platforms. It's no loss, but still.

The whole thing is a sordid affair and I just wish the media would (again) not get sucked in by Trump. They are complain bitterly but cannot help themselves.
 
No. But it would help to slow down some of the other vitriol and show a deal of respect and understanding to the intern - let's face it, if Trump did that to a woman, the press would pee their pants with anger. I suspect he'll just double down on his victimhood.


And likewise, the media expect to treated the same way, then the make stuff up or don't fact check the basics. Both sides, plus the Dems, have to take a long hard look at themselves and tone it down. The media cannot sit in a tower of self righteous outrage.

Acosta has been acting like that for months - he made an a**e of himself when Trump visited the UK. He bleats about Trump being immature, but just apes the behaviour. Him crying wolf is a hoot! An absolute hoot.

Out of interest. What do you think about CNNs efforts to get people like InfoWars (morons) removed from Social Media platforms? Seeing as they care so much about freedom of speech at the moment, they have an unsavoury obsession over Alex Jones (stupid idiot) and removing his freedom of speech from platforms. It's no loss, but still.

The whole thing is a sordid affair and I just wish the media would (again) not get sucked in by Trump. They are complain bitterly but cannot help themselves.

Why should he apologise after she attempted to grab the microphone, she initiated the contact so why is Acosta being disrespectful? I would say the same if it was Trump in a reverse position by the way. Acosta did not push her away or initiate contact so the White House/Trump are making rubbish up. I hope Acosta considers legal action for defamation of character if the White House doesn't drop this ridiculous ban.
 
The concern I have that Pete has too is that there is no credible opposition to Trump. I don’t like Trump as he hates the rest of the world and pretends to put America first. At least 50% of the USA can’t stand him, and that includes the young, women and ethnic minorities, some of whom helped him into power.
The outcome of the mid term elections in America have produced a calming influence on the financial markets, because Trump will have to try and be more engaging with the Democrats. Two years time, I think that will work in Trumps favour in the presidential elections. There is nobody with charisma emerging on the Democratic side to properly challenge Trump.
Unfortunately it may well be we have to put up with six more long years of Trump
 
Why should he apologise after she attempted to grab the microphone, she initiated the contact so why is Acosta being disrespectful? I would say the same if it was Trump in a reverse position by the way. Acosta did not push her away or initiate contact so the White House/Trump are making rubbish up. I hope Acosta considers legal action for defamation of character if the White House doesn't drop this ridiculous ban.
Simply, because that is what the form of the press conference is - you have a mic, ask a questions, when your question is done (and you don't get 5 questions), you give the mic up to the intern and sit down. If he thinks he is a professional, he gives it up.

In today's rather hyped climate, he has to apologise first for the contact (it's there, no matter how people obfuscate on it) and second for his attitude towards the intern. But I assume he's picked a hill he's willing to die on. Considering what people are forced to apologise for nowadays, Acosta has to do it too. I'm sure Trump would love a lawsuit and love the attention he can get on the "fake news" networks. I'd advise the opposite. Apologise to the intern, calm it down for a few weeks and get back to the job. Stop being the story!

The concern I have that Pete has too is that there is no credible opposition to Trump. I don’t like Trump as he hates the rest of the world and pretends to put America first. At least 50% of the USA can’t stand him, and that includes the young, women and ethnic minorities, some of whom helped him into power.
The outcome of the mid term elections in America have produced a calming influence on the financial markets, because Trump will have to try and be more engaging with the Democrats. Two years time, I think that will work in Trumps favour in the presidential elections. There is nobody with charisma emerging on the Democratic side to properly challenge Trump.
Unfortunately it may well be we have to put up with six more long years of Trump
And to add. The Dems have a split between the moderates and radicals. They were hoping someone like Beto O'Rourke would beat Cruz, but as he didn't, they have an issue trying to find a candidate that can be beat Trump and unite the party.

It's worth noting, the Senate candidates Trump personally endorsed, won. Those who didn't lost.
 
Simply, because that is what the form of the press conference is - you have a mic, ask a questions, when your question is done (and you don't get 5 questions), you give the mic up to the intern and sit down. If he thinks he is a professional, he gives it up.

In today's rather hyped climate, he has to apologise first for the contact (it's there, no matter how people obfuscate on it) and second for his attitude towards the intern. But I assume he's picked a hill he's willing to die on. Considering what people are forced to apologise for nowadays, Acosta has to do it too. I'm sure Trump would love a lawsuit and love the attention he can get on the "fake news" networks. I'd advise the opposite. Apologise to the intern, calm it down for a few weeks and get back to the job. Stop being the story!


And to add. The Dems have a split between the moderates and radicals. They were hoping someone like Beto O'Rourke would beat Cruz, but as he didn't, they have an issue trying to find a candidate that can be beat Trump and unite the party.

It's worth noting, the Senate candidates Trump personally endorsed, won. Those who didn't lost.

Yes, there is contact and she initiated it, so she should apologise to him on that basis. Even the zoomed in pictures put out by Infowars confirm that!
 
As a general point , part of the reason people are debating this is the hysteria over Corey Lewandowski in 2016 - and the reaction of the media to the "assault". Sadly, the culture of OTT reactions and viral moments in the media means the standards have to be applied consistently rather than a level of common sense and moving on.

It's appropriate for Acsota to apologise to the intern, say I was wrong and close this down. That is the right thing to do, rather than threaten lawsuits. Don't be the story, report on it. It's only dividing the sides more, and that does no one any good. Look at Antifa's going to Tucker Carlson's house - just plain wrong, whoever's side you sit on.
 
Simply, because that is what the form of the press conference is - you have a mic, ask a questions, when your question is done (and you don't get 5 questions), you give the mic up to the intern and sit down. If he thinks he is a professional, he gives it up.

In today's rather hyped climate, he has to apologise first for the contact (it's there, no matter how people obfuscate on it) and second for his attitude towards the intern. But I assume he's picked a hill he's willing to die on. Considering what people are forced to apologise for nowadays, Acosta has to do it too. I'm sure Trump would love a lawsuit and love the attention he can get on the "fake news" networks. I'd advise the opposite. Apologise to the intern, calm it down for a few weeks and get back to the job. Stop being the story!


And to add. The Dems have a split between the moderates and radicals. They were hoping someone like Beto O'Rourke would beat Cruz, but as he didn't, they have an issue trying to find a candidate that can be beat Trump and unite the party.

It's worth noting, the Senate candidates Trump personally endorsed, won. Those who didn't lost.
As Gary Baldi says if the media and particularly CNN want the moral high ground they need to act differently to and better than Trump, not copy his insults and tantrums.
And of of course rows about press conferences distract from issues like health care. That probably suits Trump too.
Yes shame about O'Rourke, but surely someone with impressive qualities can emerge - and possibly it could still be him. The Democrats have, I sincerely hope, learnt from the disaster of choosing Hilary. Not a problem about her policies or obviously that she's a woman, but the sense of establishment superiority and of entitlement. And of course she did get most votes!
 
maybe Trump was bullied as a kid and that's why he's like he is?
 
Saw this on a photo of a placard during his trip to Windsor, and struggle to get it out of my head whenever I hear the obnoxious tw*t open his mouth:

Super Callous Facsist Racist Sexist Lying POTUS.
 
Not going to get into the Acosta debate.....because frankly it's not worth the energy!

But on a broader point, this election is going to ensure that - from a legislative standpoint at least - Trump is going to come out of his first term without much of a lasting legacy.

Despite control of the Senate and House, they only passed one significant piece of legislation in the past two years which was his tax bill (which was very company-centric, but not generally viewed as terrible, even by a lot of Democrats. They just fought it because Trump!). They failed to repeal Obamacare (the final significant act of John McCain), they failed to pass immigration reform or funding of the border wall, they failed to deliver very much.

Now they've lost the House, there is zero chance that any significant part of Trump's platform gets passed into law. At best, he might be able to reach across the aisle and do a deal with the Dems on something like an infrastructure bill. But only if they stop fighting eachother for a couple of months.

Trump can - and will - pass further executive orders to amend or add new regulations. But (just as happened in the last six years of Obama's presidency) those are never permanent; they'll just get rescinded the moment that the next Democrat president comes into power.

The biggest lasting effect that Trump is going to have is likely his judicial appointments (which he can continue to make because the Republicans held the Senate) - on all levels, but particularly the Supreme Court. And especially if the notorious RBG can't make it through another two years. Then you will likely see an attack on Roe vs. Wade (the previous SC judgement that guaranteed a woman's right to choose) - although that won't ban abortion outright across the nation, it'll just return control of the decision to the states (at which point the deep south and the flyover states will ban it, the coastal states will not and the polarisation of the US will continue).

As for the Dems - their desperate search for a realistic candidate to defeat Trump will gather force for the next twelve months.
Although he lost to Cruz, I think Beto is still as likely as anyone. He's cool and likeable, and noone seems to care that he's lacking in much substance or has some seriously questionable baggage (because.....Trump!). And getting within ~3% in Texas - even against the completely uncharismatic Ted Cruz - is actually pretty impressive for a Democrat.
 
Not going to get into the Acosta debate.....because frankly it's not worth the energy!

But on a broader point, this election is going to ensure that - from a legislative standpoint at least - Trump is going to come out of his first term without much of a lasting legacy.

Despite control of the Senate and House, they only passed one significant piece of legislation in the past two years which was his tax bill (which was very company-centric, but not generally viewed as terrible, even by a lot of Democrats. They just fought it because Trump!). They failed to repeal Obamacare (the final significant act of John McCain), they failed to pass immigration reform or funding of the border wall, they failed to deliver very much.

Now they've lost the House, there is zero chance that any significant part of Trump's platform gets passed into law. At best, he might be able to reach across the aisle and do a deal with the Dems on something like an infrastructure bill. But only if they stop fighting eachother for a couple of months.

Trump can - and will - pass further executive orders to amend or add new regulations. But (just as happened in the last six years of Obama's presidency) those are never permanent; they'll just get rescinded the moment that the next Democrat president comes into power.

The biggest lasting effect that Trump is going to have is likely his judicial appointments (which he can continue to make because the Republicans held the Senate) - on all levels, but particularly the Supreme Court. And especially if the notorious RBG can't make it through another two years. Then you will likely see an attack on Roe vs. Wade (the previous SC judgement that guaranteed a woman's right to choose) - although that won't ban abortion outright across the nation, it'll just return control of the decision to the states (at which point the deep south and the flyover states will ban it, the coastal states will not and the polarisation of the US will continue).

As for the Dems - their desperate search for a realistic candidate to defeat Trump will gather force for the next twelve months.
Although he lost to Cruz, I think Beto is still as likely as anyone. He's cool and likeable, and noone seems to care that he's lacking in much substance or has some seriously questionable baggage (because.....Trump!). And getting within ~3% in Texas - even against the completely uncharismatic Ted Cruz - is actually pretty impressive for a Democrat.

Unfortunately, Trump has successfully decimated Environmental legislation as well.
 
Not going to get into the Acosta debate.....because frankly it's not worth the energy!

But on a broader point, this election is going to ensure that - from a legislative standpoint at least - Trump is going to come out of his first term without much of a lasting legacy.

Despite control of the Senate and House, they only passed one significant piece of legislation in the past two years which was his tax bill (which was very company-centric, but not generally viewed as terrible, even by a lot of Democrats. They just fought it because Trump!). They failed to repeal Obamacare (the final significant act of John McCain), they failed to pass immigration reform or funding of the border wall, they failed to deliver very much.

Now they've lost the House, there is zero chance that any significant part of Trump's platform gets passed into law. At best, he might be able to reach across the aisle and do a deal with the Dems on something like an infrastructure bill. But only if they stop fighting eachother for a couple of months.

Trump can - and will - pass further executive orders to amend or add new regulations. But (just as happened in the last six years of Obama's presidency) those are never permanent; they'll just get rescinded the moment that the next Democrat president comes into power.

The biggest lasting effect that Trump is going to have is likely his judicial appointments (which he can continue to make because the Republicans held the Senate) - on all levels, but particularly the Supreme Court. And especially if the notorious RBG can't make it through another two years. Then you will likely see an attack on Roe vs. Wade (the previous SC judgement that guaranteed a woman's right to choose) - although that won't ban abortion outright across the nation, it'll just return control of the decision to the states (at which point the deep south and the flyover states will ban it, the coastal states will not and the polarisation of the US will continue).

As for the Dems - their desperate search for a realistic candidate to defeat Trump will gather force for the next twelve months.
Although he lost to Cruz, I think Beto is still as likely as anyone. He's cool and likeable, and noone seems to care that he's lacking in much substance or has some seriously questionable baggage (because.....Trump!). And getting within ~3% in Texas - even against the completely uncharismatic Ted Cruz - is actually pretty impressive for a Democrat.
Plus the other judiciary appointments that the Republicans have made and pushed through in the past few months. They will far outweigh whatever legislation that Trump passes (or doesn't) in his time as President.

I can't believe how much of Beto's baggage is ignored. Makes a Kennedy look like a saint in comparison ;)
 
As a general point , part of the reason people are debating this is the hysteria over Corey Lewandowski in 2016 - and the reaction of the media to the "assault". Sadly, the culture of OTT reactions and viral moments in the media means the standards have to be applied consistently rather than a level of common sense and moving on.

It's appropriate for Acsota to apologise to the intern, say I was wrong and close this down. That is the right thing to do, rather than threaten lawsuits. Don't be the story, report on it. It's only dividing the sides more, and that does no one any good. Look at Antifa's going to Tucker Carlson's house - just plain wrong, whoever's side you sit on.

Again, Acosta didn't do anything wrong as he didn't create any contact (if there was any contact) hence he doesn't need to apologise. The intern doesn't need to apologise either but she created any contact when reaching in for the mic.
 
Again, Acosta didn't do anything wrong as he didn't create any contact (if there was any contact) hence he doesn't need to apologise. The intern doesn't need to apologise either but she created any contact when reaching in for the mic.
Oh please - just admit he made a mistake. Even the BBC were mildly critical of Acosta's conduct. The BBC! It must have materially hurt them to do that.
 
Oh please - just admit he made a mistake. Even the BBC were mildly critical of Acosta's conduct. The BBC! It must have materially hurt them to do that.

Footballing your logic in a football context, Alfie Potter should have apologised to the Bristol Rovers player, when he got seriously injured, for not getting out of the way.
 
Footballing your logic in a football context, Alfie Potter should have apologised to the Bristol Rovers player, when he got seriously injured, for not getting out of the way.
You could just say Acosta was wrong. :D It won't hurt
 
Back
Top Bottom