JUSTICE: Jim Acosta Loses Hard Press Pass
Comments
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
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. CMWas I talking to you? Mother?
Sir,
You need to check yourself. If you truly listen and learn from your mother, no one else has to be. All mothers should be respected. It appears you don't listen to any mother (real or imaginary). There are no children here. All adults. This is not a bar or men's locker room. Please raise the language, raise the standards. CM -
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
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. CMWas I talking to you? Mother?
Sir,
You need to check yourself. If you truly listen and learn from your mother, no one else has to be. All mothers should be respected. It appears you don't listen to any mother (real or imaginary). There are no children here. All adults. This is not a bar or men's locker room. Please raise the language, raise the standards. CMStop trying to be the self-appointed moderator of this site. Mother. You have your own problems to deal with, like coming out of the fantasy world you live in and entering the real world.
-
@reformed said:
Was I talking to you (CM)? Mother?I think you were talking to CM, reformed, at least "metaphysically".... (emphasis added)
"....You (CM) don't conduct yourself responsibly, you try to act like you are everyone's mother. Do this, so and so, do that so and so, you shouldn't be like that so and so, all the while you do the same things and give yourself a pass. I'm sick of the two-faced actions of you and Bill.
Maybe you are the same person after all. If not physically, metaphysically you are one in the same.
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
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. CMWas I talking to you? Mother?
Sir,
You need to check yourself. If you truly listen and learn from your mother, no one else has to be. All mothers should be respected. It appears you don't listen to any mother (real or imaginary). There are no children here. All adults. This is not a bar or men's locker room. Please raise the language, raise the standards. CMStop trying to be the self-appointed moderator of this site. Mother. You have your own problems to deal with, like coming out of the fantasy world you live in and entering the real world.
Reformed,
Be the adult you want to be known and respected for in these forums. "Self-appointed moderator"? Speak what you know. You don't get a vote when it comes to order and decorum. Lack of proper decorum imposes the need for control. Your better self is what is called for at this point. Thanks. CM -
@Bill_Coley said:
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.So what?
I hoped to have made clear that I regarded the matter about "jerking" to be an actual irrelevant side track or smoke screen put up by the media to "whitewash" Acosta's inappropriate behavior as a journalist and ride an attack on Trump with his response; when in reality the real issue and cause for reaction was Acosta's unbecoming behavior as a reporter at the press conference.Is this now clear? And yes, I regard pointing to the real issue to be an "in some sense" more appropriate reply to @reformed's comment than to even consider further the mass media's smoke screen in place of the real matter
-
My opinion about Acosta's behavior toward the lady? I regard his behavior of forcefully withholding the microphone from her and after she had seemingly had her hand on it abruptly moving his arm to certainly be "forceful" and some may rightfully call it or compare it to "jerking".
Anyone want to claim that Acosta behaved as a normal person? I don't ...
He certainly did not conduct himself as a gentleman toward a woman ... why has nobody picked up on such gender politics incorrect behavior ? Where are all the feminists scream bloody hell when a man, and especially so a white male, acts like that toward a woman?Nor did Acosta show due respect for a person acting on behalf of the host of the meeting ...
I once was speaker at a meeting and during the presentation had a period of time for audience questions with a helper (in this case a young man) handing a microphone to those who had a question, etc. After 3 or 4 people asking their question, the next one "out of the blue" started yelling at me and screaming at me being a false teacher, etc ... I interrupted the man, told him to ask his question in a proper tone or else shut up and leave as I would have him escorted out of the room. Since he continued, after a few more words the ushers were at his side, and escorted him out ... end of story. Next person got to ask their question ... Now, I am pretty sure that some might think what kind of a terrible fellow I am, maybe worse than Trump, not allowing this person to talk and disrupt the meeting ... The terrible fellow was that person, who apparently was a hypocrite in the first place as his intention for attending the meeting was to disrupt and make me look like the devil ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
I once was speaker at a meeting and during the presentation had a period of time for audience questions with a helper (in this case a young man) handing a microphone to those who had a question, etc. After 3 or 4 people asking their question, the next one "out of the blue" started yelling at me and screaming at me being a false teacher, etc ... I interrupted the man, told him to ask his question in a proper tone or else shut up and leave as I would have him escorted out of the room. Since he continued, after a few more words the ushers were at his side, and escorted him out ... end of story. Next person got to ask their question ... Now, I am pretty sure that some might think what kind of a terrible fellow I am, maybe worse than Trump, not allowing this person to talk and disrupt the meeting ... The terrible fellow was that person, who apparently was a hypocrite in the first place as his intention for attending the meeting was to disrupt and make me look like the devil ...
Wolfgang,
I am sorry for your experience.The young woman overstepped her bounds. She was to transport the mic to the next person, not to enforce the removal of the mic out of a person's hand. That's the job of security or Capitol Police to enforce removal. This girl was set up. Trump loves confusion -- roughing up. Acosta was being assertive as his trade (reporter) requires. The White House exercised its authority when it comes to Acosta. Simple truth. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
I once was speaker at a meeting and during the presentation had a period of time for audience questions with a helper (in this case a young man) handing a microphone to those who had a question, etc. After 3 or 4 people asking their question, the next one "out of the blue" started yelling at me and screaming at me being a false teacher, etc ... I interrupted the man, told him to ask his question in a proper tone or else shut up and leave as I would have him escorted out of the room. Since he continued, after a few more words the ushers were at his side, and escorted him out ... end of story. Next person got to ask their question ... Now, I am pretty sure that some might think what kind of a terrible fellow I am, maybe worse than Trump, not allowing this person to talk and disrupt the meeting ... The terrible fellow was that person, who apparently was a hypocrite in the first place as his intention for attending the meeting was to disrupt and make me look like the devil ...
Wolfgang,
I am sorry for your experience.The young woman overstepped her bounds. She was to transport the mic to the next person, not to enforce the removal of the mic out of a person's hand. That's the job of security or Capitol Police to enforce removal. This girl was set up. Trump loves confusion -- roughing up. Acosta was being assertive as his trade (reporter) requires. The White House exercised its authority when it comes to Acosta. Simple truth. CM
There's that fantasy world again. That is not the job of the Capitol Police. Good grief. She was doing her job. Acosta was in the wrong and if you can't see that you are too stupid to even be posting here.
-
@Wolfgang said:
There's that fantasy world again. That is not the job of the Capitol Police. Good grief. She was doing her job. Acosta was in the wrong and if you can't see that you are too stupid to even be posting here.Your response here, reformed, reminds me of our president's response to a journalist's question today on his way to Marine 1.
The journalist asked a perfectly legitimate and responsible question about the president's intentions behind his selection for acting attorney general, given Whitaker's oft-stated criticisms of the Mueller probe. Instead of answering the question, however, the president said, "What a stupid question that is, what a stupid question. But I watch you a lot. You ask a lot of stupid questions." [More "due respect," @Wolfgang?
]Do you trumpsters get a monthly newsletter or something with recommended put downs of people who disagree with you, or do you come up with these on your own?
-
@C_M_ said:
The young woman overstepped her bounds.Ha ha ha ... just as I was the bad guy having my disturbing dude escorted out ?
She was to transport the mic to the next person, not to enforce the removal of the mic out of a person's hand. That's the job of security or Capitol Police to enforce removal.
WOW ... you must not be familiar with quite a number of common sense things and how they are handled normally ...
This girl was set up.
She had a job to do ... which was to pick up the mic from one reporter and pass it on to the next one in line to ask a question
Trump loves confusion -- roughing up.
Are we talking about the same incident ?
Acosta was being assertive as his trade (reporter) requires.
He acted as a paid presstitute trying to incite disturbing commotion since he really didn't have a question but rather from the start misused the situation for a typical press-attack. I deem it absolutely appropriate that his accreditation was revoked ....actually, if CNN was a company interested in quality journalism, they would by now have fired him for unprofessional conduct.
The White House exercised its authority when it comes to Acosta. Simple truth.
And rightfully so ... they let Acosta know that his conduct is unbecoming a real journalist.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Do you trumpsters get a monthly newsletter or something with recommended put downs of people who disagree with you, or do you come up with these on your own?I am not a Trumpster but an innocent fellow in an outsider position ... and I come up with my stuff by reading and THINKING about what I read ... usually while I have acup of coffee
-
@Wolfgang said:
I am not a Trumpster but an innocent fellow in an outsider position ... and I come up with my stuff by reading and THINKING about what I read ... usually while I have acup of coffee
The Trumpster question in my last post was meant for reformed, not you, Wolfgang.
I like to think you're not the only CD poster who reads and thinks about what he or she reads.
I DID intend for you the question about the president's responses to journalists, both at the press conference the other day, and on the White House lawn earlier today:
- Did the president exhibit what you consider "due respect" for the journalists he interrupted before they finished asking their questions?
- Did he exhibit "due respect" for the journalists whom he did not allow to finish their questions?
- Did he exhibit "due respect" for the journalist this morning when his only response to her question was to call it "stupid," and to tell her that she asks "a lot of stupid questions"?
- In your presentations to audiences, was it your practice to allow questioners to finish asking their questions (screamers notwithstanding!)? How often did you refuse to allow questions to finish asking their questions?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
I am not a Trumpster but an innocent fellow in an outsider position ... and I come up with my stuff by reading and THINKING about what I read ... usually while I have acup of coffee
The Trumpster question in my last post was meant for reformed, not you, Wolfgang.
I like to think you're not the only CD poster who reads and thinks about what he or she reads.
I DID intend for you the question about the president's responses to journalists, both at the press conference the other day, and on the White House lawn earlier today:
- Did the president exhibit what you consider "due respect" for the journalists he interrupted before they finished asking their questions?
For the ones that deserve it? Yes.
- Did he exhibit "due respect" for the journalists whom he did not allow to finish their questions?
They didn't deserve it.
- Did he exhibit "due respect" for the journalist this morning when his only response to her question was to call it "stupid," and to tell her that she asks "a lot of stupid questions"?
Yeah that was uncalled for.
- In your presentations to audiences, was it your practice to allow questioners to finish asking their questions (screamers notwithstanding!)? How often did you refuse to allow questions to finish asking their questions?
When they have shown time and time again they aren't interested in truth would be a good reason to not let them finish.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
Acosta was being assertive as his trade (reporter) requires.
He acted as a paid presstitute trying to incite disturbing commotion since he really didn't have a question but rather from the start misused the situation for a typical press-attack. I deem it absolutely appropriate that his accreditation was revoked ....actually, if CNN was a company interested in quality journalism, they would by now have fired him for unprofessional conduct.The White House exercised its authority when it comes to Acosta. Simple truth.
And rightfully so ... they let Acosta know that his conduct is unbecoming a real journalist.
It was beyond the young woman's role to wrestle the mic away from anyone. You admitted Acosta showed "unprofessional conduct", "misused the situation", "Acosta was in the wrong", and "unbecoming behavior as a reporter at the press conference". When taken at face value, it's not the young woman's job to fix or to correct Acosta's behavior. Like it was not her place to suspend his press pass. I am not trying to defend him. I am calling it as I see it. The "so-called" Press Conference was charged with Trump's anger of the Dems win.
A more relevant point for us today is how can we, in CD, do as The White House did, With Acosta, in exercising its authority when someone's "conduct is unbecoming"? CM
- PS. Acosta pushed the "envelope" and must endure the consequences.
CM
- PS. Acosta pushed the "envelope" and must endure the consequences.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
Acosta was being assertive as his trade (reporter) requires.
He acted as a paid presstitute trying to incite disturbing commotion since he really didn't have a question but rather from the start misused the situation for a typical press-attack. I deem it absolutely appropriate that his accreditation was revoked ....actually, if CNN was a company interested in quality journalism, they would by now have fired him for unprofessional conduct.The White House exercised its authority when it comes to Acosta. Simple truth.
And rightfully so ... they let Acosta know that his conduct is unbecoming a real journalist.
It was beyond the young woman's role to wrestle the mic away from anyone. You admitted Acosta showed "unprofessional conduct", "misused the situation", "Acosta was in the wrong", and "unbecoming behavior as a reporter at the press conference". When taken at face value, it's not the young woman's job to fix or to correct Acosta's behavior. Like it was not her place to suspend his press pass. I am not trying to defend him. I am calling it as I see it. The "so-called" Press Conference was charged with Trump's anger of the Dems win.
Did you even watch the video? She didn't try to wrestle it away, she simply tried to take it and he jerked it back. She WAS DOING her job. The way you talk about the incident seems like you didn't even watch it. She didn't suspend his press pass either so why are you saying it wasn't her place? Good grief.
A more relevant point for us today is how can we, in CD, do as The White House did, With Acosta, in exercising its authority when someone's "conduct is unbecoming"? CM
- PS. Acosta pushed the "envelope" and must endure the consequences. CM
Off-Topic
- PS. Acosta pushed the "envelope" and must endure the consequences.
-
@reformed said:
There's that fantasy world again. That is not the job of the Capitol Police. Good grief. She was doing her job. Acosta was in the wrong and if you can't see that you are too stupid to even be posting here.
Reformed,
FYI-- I am not upset you have a need to call me "mother". If this helps you fulfill another need to do as you're accustomed to or fulfill a fantasy by calling someone mother and be rude, I don't approve, but I understand your inner desire to do this. In the real world, our birth-mothers or one we call 'mother", we usually show them the highest respect. I am not asking this of you, for me. However, I am asking you to be mindful that there are only adults (differing viewpoints) currently in these forums and that you would relate to each as you would want to be treated. I am sorry, I take that back! I would like you to treat each as Christ would relate to them. Or if Christ were beside you.Be bigger, be better, be appropriate. CM
-
So is:
@reformed said: "There's that fantasy world again... if you can't see that you are too stupid to even be posting here".
I am a man, a father, and a user of the New CD. Please give this some consideration before posting such, as above, to me or anyone remaining in these forums. Thanks. Be at peace. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I DID intend for you the question about the president's responses to journalists, both at the press conference the other day, and on the White House lawn earlier today:- Did the president exhibit what you consider "due respect" for the journalists he interrupted before they finished asking their questions?
The way quite a number of journalists nowadays behave - most likely even on instructions by the news network for which they work - makes the President's remarks to be indeed "due respect" ... in other words, "what you sow is what you reap"
- Did he exhibit "due respect" for the journalists whom he did not allow to finish their questions?
Acosta had already finished his "questions" (which lacked the proper character of "question" and rather were intended as "pick a fight" statement.
- Did he exhibit "due respect" for the journalist this morning when his only response to her question was to call it "stupid," and to tell her that she asks "a lot of stupid questions"?
Since some of them consider him to be "stupid" and plainly exhibit such, he did exhibit the respect that appeared due to them ..... Now, it is obvious that the few sincere and proper acting journalists are unfortunately on the receiving end of what is really due to the insincere colleagues; if they don't like that, they need to clearly distance themselves from those colleagues.
- In your presentations to audiences, was it your practice to allow questioners to finish asking their questions (screamers notwithstanding!)? How often did you refuse to allow questions to finish asking their questions?
I did not refuse to allow questions ... I refused someone acting inappropriately to mistreat the rest of the audience as well as mistreat myself. It did not happen often in my time ... perhaps because most of the time people in the audiences knew how to behave and treat others properly?
The major problem with many journalists is that they behave and work in ways in which years ago they would have not even passed a job interview ... their behavior often exhibits non-respect and haughty attitude. The mainstream media have become party line propaganda machines, and - as one could observe in some cases - quality journalists not obeying the propaganda and rather adhering to proper and more neutral journalism questioning what was being propaganda pushed were fired.
-
Wolfgang,
Focusing on Acosta's behavior as a reporter is pale in comparison to Mr. Trump's behavior as a man and as President-"Leader of the Free World". It's a "false moral equivalence". I speak of Trump's behavior before and during his Presidency. Acosta was navigating the hostile world (environment) Trump creates everywhere he goes. I am not trying to defend Acosta's behavior. "Two wrongs don't make right".
This discussion, you're at liberty to continue, but it's a distraction from America's real problem -- a man (President Trump) with a boyish behavior with low-morals, too much power, disregard for "the rule of law" and an insatiable appetite for name-calling while creating confusion and division. That so-called News Conference was a "bully" at work, on full display.
Trump is angry the country don't approve of the direction it's headed, the Dem's big win (control the US House), but above all, additional indictment (possibly family members). He's afraid, desperate, and angry. Trump's style and policies were repudiated last week.
America's real problem # 2-- The so-called "Acting Attorney General" without power. One more "Luney Tune" act from the "Political Circus" of the US Government. CM
PS. Read the book: "Whatever Trump Touches, Dies". Beware America, Trump is President. No hate for America. I'm just holding up a mirror. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Focusing on Acosta's behavior as a reporter is pale in comparison to Mr. Trump's behavior as a man and as President-"Leader of the Free World". It's a "false moral equivalence". I speak of Trump's behavior before and during his Presidency.You give the impression of being obsessed by Democrat party "(Trump) hate politics."
Acosta was navigating the hostile world (environment) Trump creates everywhere he goes. I am not trying to defend Acosta's behavior. "Two wrongs don't make right".
Acosta was navigating in waters he had no business navigating in at that particular time and in that situation .... trying to be the elephant in certain places has the consequence of being thrown out. And "elephant" is not really a synonym for "journalist" ... unless one would want to claim that the network one is working for qualifies as a Zoo.
Trump is angry the country don't approve of the direction it's headed, the Dem's big win (control the US House), but above all, additional indictment (possibly family members). He's afraid, desperate, and angry. Trump's style and policies were repudiated last week.
What you call the "Dem's big win" seems rather to be something (a mid term win of the party in opposition to the president) that has neither "big" nor something unusual, as it has happened plenty of times. In addition, 2 year terms are not as big a deal as 6 year terms ... and rather a big indication of country thinking was given by the defeat of those Democrat senators who played the "wreck and ruin game" in the approval processor of a recent supreme court judge who (except for CA Feinstein lady) were not re-elected.
-
Wolfgang,
Didn't the Chief of Staff call the White House a "Zoo"? CMPS. Please ask Bill to correct this for you. Thanks. CM
@Wolfgang said: "What you call the "Dem's big win" seems rather to be something (a mid term win of the party in opposition to the president) that has neither "big" nor something unusual, as it has happened plenty of times. In addition, 2 year terms are not as big a deal as 6 year terms ... and rather a big indication of country thinking was given by the defeat of those Democrat senators who played the "wreck and ruin game" in the approval processor of a recent supreme court judge who (except for CA Feinstein lady) were not re-elected".
-
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
Didn't the Chief of Staff call the White House a "Zoo"? CMSince when is the White House the news network for which Acosta is working?
-
@Wolfgang said:
You give the impression of being obsessed by Democrat party "(Trump) hate politics."Because facts matter, I note that the name of the party is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.
What you call the "Dem's big win" seems rather to be something (a mid term win of the party in opposition to the president) that has neither "big" nor something unusual, as it has happened plenty of times. In addition, 2 year terms are not as big a deal as 6 year terms ... and rather a big indication of country thinking was given by the defeat of those Democrat senators who played the "wreck and ruin game" in the approval processor of a recent supreme court judge who (except for CA Feinstein lady) were not re-elected.
A few factors make last week's midterm results atypical, what I would call a modest to significant wave:
1. As I noted in another thread, on average since 1910, the party in power has lost 31 House seats in the midterms; in the last 50 years, the average loss has been 24 seats. By either metric, the Democrats' expected 35-37 seat gain last week was greater than average.
2. According to President Trump, currently, the American economy "in many ways... is the greatest in the HISTORY of America." Of course, that statement is false - what else is new coming from a man who lies basically every time he he communicates? - but it CAN be fairly said that the US economy is doing well (a sizable majority of Americans - 69% - agrees). BUT STILL the Democrats won a greater-than-average number of House seats in last week's midterms.
3. And then there were the Senate races, conducted this year on an electoral map that HEAVILY favored Republicans. Democrats had to defend 24 of the 35 seats up for grabs, ten of which were in states Trump won in 2016; that was a BIG lift (in 2020, Republicans will have to defend at least 20 of the 33 open seats). To think that Democrats MIGHT lose no more than one net Senate seat on such a bad map is pretty amazing.For those reasons, I think it's fair to conclude last week's midterms were a significant victory for Democrats.
As for your claim that "2 year terms are not as big a deal as 6 year terms," I don't know what it means. Please explain. Does that mean you believe an American president's four year term is "not as big a deal" as a senator's six year term? And so what? I can't a remember a time when I voted for or against a candidate because of the length of his or her term in office.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
You give the impression of being obsessed by Democrat party "(Trump) hate politics."Because facts matter, I note that the name of the party is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.
What you call the "Dem's big win" seems rather to be something (a mid term win of the party in opposition to the president) that has neither "big" nor something unusual, as it has happened plenty of times. In addition, 2 year terms are not as big a deal as 6 year terms ... and rather a big indication of country thinking was given by the defeat of those Democrat senators who played the "wreck and ruin game" in the approval processor of a recent supreme court judge who (except for CA Feinstein lady) were not re-elected.
A few factors make last week's midterm results atypical, what I would call a modest to significant wave:
1. As I noted in another thread, on average since 1910, the party in power has lost 31 House seats in the midterms; in the last 50 years, the average loss has been 24 seats. By either metric, the Democrats' expected 35-37 seat gain last week was greater than average.
2. According to President Trump, currently, the American economy "in many ways... is the greatest in the HISTORY of America." Of course, that statement is false - what else is new coming from a man who lies basically every time he he communicates? - but it CAN be fairly said that the US economy is doing well (a sizable majority of Americans - 69% - agrees). BUT STILL the Democrats won a greater-than-average number of House seats in last week's midterms.
3. And then there were the Senate races, conducted this year on an electoral map that HEAVILY favored Republicans. Democrats had to defend 24 of the 35 seats up for grabs, ten of which were in states Trump won in 2016; that was a BIG lift (in 2020, Republicans will have to defend at least 20 of the 33 open seats). To think that Democrats MIGHT lose no more than one net Senate seat on such a bad map is pretty amazing.For those reasons, I think it's fair to conclude last week's midterms were a significant victory for Democrats.
As for your claim that "2 year terms are not as big a deal as 6 year terms," I don't know what it means. Please explain. Does that mean you believe an American president's four year term is "not as big a deal" as a senator's six year term? And so what? I can't a remember a time when I voted for or against a candidate because of the length of his or her term in office.
There was also an abnormal number of Republican retirements. That balances out that this was really just an average gain for Democrats, not a wave.
-
@reformed said:
There was also an abnormal number of Republican retirements. That balances out that this was really just an average gain for Democrats, not a wave.
I don't see how the number of retirements in each party has anything to do with the average number of seats won by the power out of power in midterm elections. The average number lost is the average number lost. What's next? "The party out of power had an unusually large number bad candidates, and that balanced things out and meant the party out of power experienced only an "average" gain, not a wave"?
But I'm open to correction. I've provided the stats for the "average gain" of House seats for the party out of power since 1910 and for the the last 50 years (I used a spreadsheet on data from THIS SITE) Please provide a link to data that give that "average gain" of House seats for the party out of power when the party in power has a net of 18 more House members not seeking re-election, as the GOP did this election.
-
@reformed said:
There was also an abnormal number of Republican retirements. That balances out that this was really just an average gain for Democrats, not a wave.
Are you in denial, being bias, or spreading the fake news in the forums?
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
There was also an abnormal number of Republican retirements. That balances out that this was really just an average gain for Democrats, not a wave.
Are you in denial, being bias, or spreading the fake news in the forums?
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”. CM
None of the above. Good grief.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
There was also an abnormal number of Republican retirements. That balances out that this was really just an average gain for Democrats, not a wave.
I don't see how the number of retirements in each party has anything to do with the average number of seats won by the power out of power in midterm elections. The average number lost is the average number lost. What's next? "The party out of power had an unusually large number bad candidates, and that balanced things out and meant the party out of power experienced only an "average" gain, not a wave"?
But I'm open to correction. I've provided the stats for the "average gain" of House seats for the party out of power since 1910 and for the the last 50 years (I used a spreadsheet on data from THIS SITE) Please provide a link to data that give that "average gain" of House seats for the party out of power when the party in power has a net of 18 more House members not seeking re-election, as the GOP did this election.
How did we get off topic from that clown Acosta?
-
@reformed said:
How did we get off topic from that clown Acosta?
"Clown" references. An atypical but functional distraction tactic, I think.
We got to my previous post - the one you evaded via the "clown" reference - because you posted this:
"There was also an abnormal number of Republican retirements. That balances out that this was really just an average gain for Democrats, not a wave."
It's not clear to me how your decision to insert such an "off-topic from that clown Acosta" comment into this thread contributed to your desire to stay on topic about "that clown Acosta."
-
First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Says CNN ‘Should Sue’ White House Over Jim Acosta
It would be a “really strong lawsuit,” according to the attorney. By Mary Papenfuss
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/first-amendment-floyd-abrams-cnn-lawsuit-white-house_us_5be8b8bbe4b0dbe871ac7625First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams said Sunday that CNN “should sue” the White House for revoking the press credentials of correspondent Jim Acosta.
It would be a “really strong lawsuit,” the attorney told Brian Stelter on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.” Abrams referred to a case in which the White House revoked credentials in the 1970s. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled then that the White House must provide notice in such a case, as well as an opportunity for a journalist to respond and a written opinion from the White House explaining its reasoning that a court can examine.
“We’ve had none of those things here,” Abrams explained.
“I can understand CNN being reluctant to sue because the president keeps saying CNN is the enemy of me, and CNN might have some reluctance to have a lawsuit titled CNN v. Donald Trump,” he said. “That said, yes, I think they should sue.”
Abrams is one of the foremost experts on the First Amendment and has argued several cases on free speech rights before the Supreme Court.
“This is going to happen again,” Abrams warned about the White House revoking press credentials. “So whether it’s CNN suing or the next company suing, someone is going to have to bring a lawsuit. And whoever does is going to win unless there’s some sort of reason.”
Former ABC White House reporter Sam Donaldson said Sunday that he has been asked to prepare an affidavit to support a case by CNN. He said the president’s decision to yank Acosta’s credentials is “not only wrong and unfair; it’s dangerous for the press as a whole.”
A CNN spokesperson told HuffPost that “no decisions have been made” on whether to file a lawsuit. “We have reached out to the White House and have gotten no response,” the spokesperson added.
Earlier, a CNN statement said that the Trump administration’s treatment of Acosta was “retaliation” for coverage of Donald Trump that the president does not like.
Acosta’s White House credentials were revoked last week after a furious Trump refused to answer a follow-up question from Acosta at a press conference, told the journalist “that’s enough” and called him a “terrible person.”
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders justified the decision by saying Acosta had “put his hands on” an intern as she tried to grab for the microphone the journalist was holding, which Acosta denied. Video of the event appears to show Acosta accidentally grazing the intern’s arm as he gesticulates toward Trump. Acosta immediately apologized, saying, “Pardon me, ma’am.”
A video apparently doctored by a contributor to the right-wing conspiracy website Infowars was posted by Sanders on Twitter as “evidence” of her claim. The clip speeds up Acosta’s hand gesture, making it appear forceful. Top White House adviser Kellyanne Conway confirmed Sunday that the video was “sped up,” saying that such altering is “done all the time” on sports programs.
Acosta’s “pardon me” was not included in the White House version of the video.
At the press conference, Acosta first asked the president why he thought the caravan of migrants heading north through Mexico to the U.S. border was an “invasion.” Trump responded that it’s an invasion “because I consider it an invasion.”
Check out Abrams’ comments on the situation in the video above. His remarks begin at 2:20.
CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)