Jim Acosta karate chops intern’s arm & loses White House press pass

[BADecker]

It's as simple as this. If Acosta was required by policy to hand over the mic, and he didn't, he was wrong. But if he was assaulted, he was in the right for protecting himself.

Even if he was wrong about handing over the mic, the violence of the woman was wrong.

Even if Acosta was fired for his actions, his act of self protection is part of universal law, and especially in the U.S.

Wanna play politics? Go ahead. But Acosta was right in protecting himself.

If Acosta was wrong in not handing over the mic, the woman was wrong in trying to take it from him by force.

There is appropriate policy in place for both Acosta and the woman... a way to handle the situation peacefully.

This whole thing is a political tug of war.

This is false equivalency horse shit people always trot out when shit like this happens, allowing this double standard to continue.

Taking some thing from some one's hand is not force (unless of course you have no rights to said property). Even if it was, a reasonable amount of force used to obtain your own property from some one with no rights to it is not a crime.

Also it should be noted the act began with Accostas resistance to the legal act of taking the microphone back, not the other way around. The first to initiate illegal force is quite relevant to any case of assault.

I'm a little surprised at you. It seems you would rather start a brawl than do things through peaceful, due process channels.

If Acosta started it and was in the wrong, he would have been correct through proper channels, just as he was. The idea that he can't protect himself from violence is simply absurd.

Did you really want to see a tug-of-war over the mic?

[kenzawak]

Imagine ignoring the President telling you, “That’s enough” and forcefully denying a young woman White House staff member trying to do her job. Then complaining about it all over the media when you’re not allowed back.

Forcefully lol ? She's the one putting her hands on him.
He even apologizes to her !

[bones261]

Meh, it was obvious that Jim was trying to bait the president(and succeeding to some extent.) There were other reporters waiting to ask questions too. He should have just handed over the mic when prompted to, with no resistance. There is always another day to get your f**ing "scoop."

[bluefirecorp_]

Meh, it was obvious Jim was trying to bait the president(and succeeding to some extent.) There were other reporters waiting to ask questions too. He should have just handed over the mic when prompted to, with no resistance. There is always another day to get your f**ing "scoop."

Can you highlight an example of a previous president just demanding a reporter to be silent?

I can find things of places with dictatorships (turkey) silencing journalist, but nothing of America with a quick Google query.

I've seen people escorted out, but I haven't really seen presidents just "SHUT UP PERSON! STOP TALKING" from the USA.

[bones261]

Can you highlight an example of a previous president just demanding a reporter to be silent?

I can find things of places with dictatorships (turkey) silencing journalist, but nothing of America with a quick Google query.

I've seen people escorted out, but I haven't really seen presidents just "SHUT UP PERSON! STOP TALKING" from the USA.

     Well, unfortunately the USA now has a petulant brat for a president, and ~40% or so give it their stamp of approval. At least the president didn't have the secret service tackle the guy to the ground and beat him up. After all, the intern the president had remove the microphone was really petite. It wasn't like a typical bar bouncing situation. If Jim feels that his 1st amendment rights have been infringed, then he should proceed to Federal court, ASAP, and settle this civilly. (If he hasn't already done so.)
 

[bluefirecorp_]

Can you highlight an example of a previous president just demanding a reporter to be silent?

I can find things of places with dictatorships (turkey) silencing journalist, but nothing of America with a quick Google query.

I've seen people escorted out, but I haven't really seen presidents just "SHUT UP PERSON! STOP TALKING" from the USA.

     Well, unfortunately the USA now has a petulant brat for a president, and ~40% or so give it their stamp of approval. At least the president didn't have the secret service tackle the guy to the ground and beat him up. After all, the intern the president had remove the microphone was really petite. It wasn't like a typical bar bouncing situation. If Jim feels that his 1st amendment rights have been infringed, then he should proceed to Federal court, ASAP, and settle this civilly. (If he hasn't already done so.)
 

Aha, if the secret service tackled him to the ground for refusing to give up a mic, we'd probably see an uproar from the left. Hell, the media already sides with Jim just because his speech was infridged, and that's literally the only thing protecting their jobs.

It's kinda sad to see the state of journalism in the United States;

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Ranked 45 in freedom for "america, land of the free^*"


_{* Only if you're rich.}

[bones261]

Aha, if the secret service tackled him to the ground for refusing to give up a mic, we'd probably see an uproar from the left. Hell, the media already sides with Jim just because his speech was infridged, and that's literally the only thing protecting their jobs.

It's kinda sad to see the state of journalism in the United States;

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Ranked 45 in freedom for "america, land of the free^*"


_{* Only if you're rich.}

Yet, many lefties cheer when the social media moguls censor someone from the right. (ie nutjob Alex Jones) Granted, private corporations are not obligated to grant free speech. However, aren't the lefties being somewhat hypocritical? What ever happened to "When they go low, we go high?" Or is Michelle Obama's strategy too complicit for us lefties now?

[bluefirecorp_]

Aha, if the secret service tackled him to the ground for refusing to give up a mic, we'd probably see an uproar from the left. Hell, the media already sides with Jim just because his speech was infridged, and that's literally the only thing protecting their jobs.

It's kinda sad to see the state of journalism in the United States;

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Ranked 45 in freedom for "america, land of the free^*"


_{* Only if you're rich.}

Yet, us lefties cheer when the social media moguls censor someone from the right. (ie nutjob Alex Jones) Granted, private corporations are not obligated to grant free speech. However, aren't we being somewhat hypocritical? What ever happened to "When they go low, we go high?" Or is Michelle Obama's strategy too complicit for us now?

Government vs private industry.

Two entirely different things man.

If Alex Jones pay for his own platform, I don't give a shit what shit he spews from his corner. I won't do business with his entity either, based on just his views. If I remember right, Alex Jones violated contracts with Google and therefore lost privileged access. If I remember correctly, the violation was "harassment". Now, if you want to start setting internet rules, good luck dude.

I don't like government silencing media. That's dystopian.

[bones261]

Government vs private industry.

Two entirely different things man.

If Alex Jones pay for his own platform, I don't give a shit what shit he spews from his corner. I won't do business with his entity either, based on just his views. If I remember right, Alex Jones violated contracts with Google and therefore lost privileged access. If I remember correctly, the violation was "harassment". Now, if you want to start setting internet rules, good luck dude.

I don't like government silencing media. That's dystopian.

I am not aware of the government issuing an injunction or indictment on CNN or any other news outlet. Since my partner is a news addict, I can still hear them shouting quite loudly 24/7; especially when they put together a panel of 12 lefties and one righty to issue their opinion. If the Trump administration is truly making a concerted effort to silence the media, they are failing miserably.  

[bluefirecorp_]

Government vs private industry.

Two entirely different things man.

If Alex Jones pay for his own platform, I don't give a shit what shit he spews from his corner. I won't do business with his entity either, based on just his views. If I remember right, Alex Jones violated contracts with Google and therefore lost privileged access. If I remember correctly, the violation was "harassment". Now, if you want to start setting internet rules, good luck dude.

I don't like government silencing media. That's dystopian.

I am not aware of the government issuing an injunction or indictment on CNN or any other news outlet. Since my partner is a news addict, I can still hear them shouting quite loudly 24/7; especially when they put together a panel of 12 lefties and one righty to issue their opinion. If the Trump administration is truly making a concerted effort to silence the media, they are failing miserably.  

"THAT'S A STUPID QUESTION?"

ha, what a presidential response to a question. 

This thread exists, the right wing making up fud happens.

[Spendulus]

....

"THAT'S A STUPID QUESTION?"

ha, what a presidential response to a question. 
...

In this case, totally justified.

But Acosta didn't karate chop the girl's arm.

I definitely wouldn't give his press privileges back.

[bluefirecorp_]

What's really funny is the video's doctored to make Jim Acosta look worse. If you want the video that I posted, this whole thread is a nothing burger.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a24937408/kellyanne-conway-jim-acosta-video-doctored/

[TECSHARE]

What's really funny is the video's doctored to make Jim Acosta look worse. If you want the video that I posted, this whole thread is a nothing burger.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a24937408/kellyanne-conway-jim-acosta-video-doctored/

Oh please do source this "doctored" video so we can do a side by side comparison. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Source it.

[bluefirecorp_]

What's really funny is the video's doctored to make Jim Acosta look worse. If you want the video that I posted, this whole thread is a nothing burger.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a24937408/kellyanne-conway-jim-acosta-video-doctored/

Oh please do source this "doctored" video so we can do a side by side comparison. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Source it.

"That’s not altered, that’s sped up," said Conway of the video, "They do it all the time in sports to see if there’s a first down or a touchdown. I have to disagree with, I think, the overwrought description of this video being doctored."


Conway's statement is mind-boggling on a couple of counts. For one, speeding something up almost certainly falls under the definition of altering it. And sports analysts don’t usually speed up the action to get a clearer look at it—slowing things down tends to offer a more detailed look.

If you read the article; you'd see the source. Pretty sure you can compare the gif I linked on the first page to OP's post.

Overall, this is a false flag right wing operation to target the media.

[TECSHARE]

What's really funny is the video's doctored to make Jim Acosta look worse. If you want the video that I posted, this whole thread is a nothing burger.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a24937408/kellyanne-conway-jim-acosta-video-doctored/

Oh please do source this "doctored" video so we can do a side by side comparison. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Source it.

"That’s not altered, that’s sped up," said Conway of the video, "They do it all the time in sports to see if there’s a first down or a touchdown. I have to disagree with, I think, the overwrought description of this video being doctored."


Conway's statement is mind-boggling on a couple of counts. For one, speeding something up almost certainly falls under the definition of altering it. And sports analysts don’t usually speed up the action to get a clearer look at it—slowing things down tends to offer a more detailed look.

If you read the article; you'd see the source. Pretty sure you can compare the gif I linked on the first page to OP's post.

Overall, this is a false flag right wing operation to target the media.

A false flag? What? Do you even know what the words you use mean?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/false-flag

"false-flag
Noun

(plural false flags)

    (nautical) A ruse, in the days of sail, in which an attacking ship would fly the colours of its enemy until close enough to open fire.
    (espionage, military) A diversionary or propaganda tactic of deceiving an adversary into thinking that an operation was carried out by another party."

So your theory is Jim Acosta is an undercover Republican operative sent to discredit CNN and the Democrat party? Mmmmmk.


Why don't you make it absolutely clear and source the exact image you claim is doctored.

[bluefirecorp_]

A false flag? What? Do you even know what the words you use mean?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/false-flag

"false-flag
Noun

(plural false flags)

    (nautical) A ruse, in the days of sail, in which an attacking ship would fly the colours of its enemy until close enough to open fire.
    (espionage, military) A diversionary or propaganda tactic of deceiving an adversary into thinking that an operation was carried out by another party."

So your theory is Jim Acosta is an undercover Republican operative sent to discredit CNN and the Democrat party? Mmmmmk.


Why don't you make it absolutely clear and source the exact image you claim is doctored.

>the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.

We're talking about the guy committing "violence" rather than presidential silencing of press. It's a pretty good disguise.

The best part is the "violence" was doctored footage, which "was sped up, but not doctored" according to the whitehouse.

Speeding up the video "is" changing the footage.

[TECSHARE]

A false flag? What? Do you even know what the words you use mean?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/false-flag

"false-flag
Noun

(plural false flags)

    (nautical) A ruse, in the days of sail, in which an attacking ship would fly the colours of its enemy until close enough to open fire.
    (espionage, military) A diversionary or propaganda tactic of deceiving an adversary into thinking that an operation was carried out by another party."

So your theory is Jim Acosta is an undercover Republican operative sent to discredit CNN and the Democrat party? Mmmmmk.


Why don't you make it absolutely clear and source the exact image you claim is doctored.

>the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.

We're talking about the guy committing "violence" rather than presidential silencing of press. It's a pretty good disguise.

The best part is the "violence" was doctored footage, which "was sped up, but not doctored" according to the whitehouse.

Speeding up the video "is" changing the footage.

Even if what you are claiming were true, this still doesn't make it a false flag. Learn how to use words, then debate. Also, once again, source the image you are claiming is doctored. Not an article the image might be in, the URL to the image itself.

[bluefirecorp_]

A false flag? What? Do you even know what the words you use mean?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/false-flag

"false-flag
Noun

(plural false flags)

    (nautical) A ruse, in the days of sail, in which an attacking ship would fly the colours of its enemy until close enough to open fire.
    (espionage, military) A diversionary or propaganda tactic of deceiving an adversary into thinking that an operation was carried out by another party."

So your theory is Jim Acosta is an undercover Republican operative sent to discredit CNN and the Democrat party? Mmmmmk.


Why don't you make it absolutely clear and source the exact image you claim is doctored.

>the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.

We're talking about the guy committing "violence" rather than presidential silencing of press. It's a pretty good disguise.

The best part is the "violence" was doctored footage, which "was sped up, but not doctored" according to the whitehouse.

Speeding up the video "is" changing the footage.

Even if what you are claiming were true, this still doesn't make it a false flag. Learn how to use words, then debate. Also, once again, source the image you are claiming is doctored. Not an article the image might be in, the URL to the image itself.

Uhhh, okay buddy.

One: It's not my claim, it's the claim of the whitehouse spokesperson that the footage was "sped up".

Two: My usage of "false flag" is perfectly fine in this sense. The whole "karate chop" distracts from the fact the president told an individual member of the press to "shut up". If we had a "presidential" president, they'd have calmly let the reporter talk, say "no comment" or rebuke the statement factually.

Instead we had a whining baby cry that they shouldn't have the right to speak. The baby didn't like what he heard to he ended up taking away their right to speak to him.

Again, we're not even talking about the president silencing a reporter; which was the whole point of the whitehouse speeding up the footage is to make Jim Acosta seem like the "violent bad guy" rather than the "silenced journalist".

It's a pretty sad state of affairs of easy the "right" forgets that "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" is something the government CANNOT infringe upon.

'BUT MAH 3RD PARTY PROVIDERS MUTED MY CHAN' -- guess what, that's not a government entity bucko.

[Spendulus]

....
One: It's not my claim, it's the claim of the whitehouse spokesperson that the footage was "sped up".

Two: My usage of "false flag" is perfectly fine in this sense. The whole "karate chop" distracts from the fact the president told an individual member of the press to "shut up". If we had a "presidential" president, they'd have calmly let the reporter talk, say "no comment" or rebuke the statement factually.....

I would have told him "Shut the Fuck Up, You Idiot!" or maybe "Suck some CNN cock." No, ignore that last one that's you that do that....

"False flag" is incorrect.

As for speeding up the video, I do that all the time, no big deal. Because the amount of content is so low, why not.

Stop whining.

[bluefirecorp_]

I would have told him "Shut the Fuck Up, You Idiot!" or maybe "Suck some CNN cock." No, ignore that last one that's you that do that....

I mean, if you think governments should censor their citizens you should move to China or Russia. That's not how the United States operates.