Sarah sanders tweets manipulated footage of jim acosta

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The White House’s Acosta Video Looks Different From the Original. Does That Mean It’s “Doctored”?

White House press secretary tweets misleading video from InfoWars personality to justify revoking CNN reporter's credentials


Unknown if it the altering of the footage was intentional or accidental, but it's definitely altered in such a way as to make Jim Acosta seem violent when he was not and was lifted from a dubious conservative conspiracy website (Infowars... Alex Jones and his gay frogs).

Just so those of you who defend this administration can keep aware of the shit they're trying to shovel into your mouth.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
LMFAO. Y'all are actually trying to make a point about a minute difference in apparent force? :joy:

"Seem violent when he was not"? His wrist is making the exact same motions in each video. I could barely tell the difference flipping back and forth between the two. It doesn't look terribly violent in either, really.

IMO, the key point is that he was forcefully resisting all protocols that are designed to circumscribe the platform of any one reporter. But even setting aside the matter of forcefulness, just the fact alone that he was trying to hog so much of the President's time, at the expense of the participation of the rest of the press, and that he has an extensive history of doing this, I would say should be sufficient for revoking his credentials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SonyToyo and Gj816
D

deleted15807

Guest
LMFAO. Y'all are actually trying to make a point about a minute difference in apparent force? :joy:

"Seem violent when he was not"? His wrist is making the exact same motions in each video. I could barely tell the difference flipping back and forth between the two. It doesn't look terribly violent in either, really.

IMO, the key point is that he was forcefully resisting all protocols that are designed to circumscribe the platform of any one reporter. But even setting aside the matter of forcefulness, just the fact alone that he was trying to hog so much of the President's time, at the expense of the participation of the rest of the press, and that he has an extensive history of doing this, I would say should be sufficient for revoking his credentials.

All that can be summed up in one sentence. Trump can't take tough questions so Acosta is out. He's only used to Fox State TV circle jerk interviews. If Obama had done it you have been screaming how un-American he is and how unfit he is and how affirmative action got him there.


upload_2018-11-9_16-32-49.png


BTW, did Slate report on the attack on Tucker Carlson's home?

How about the 307 assaults on ordinary citizens that have happened so far in 2018 conservative republicans have zero concern except "thoughts and prayers" every two days?

You didn't give a crap when Tucker Carlson went on his racist assault "How, precisely, is diversity our strength? Since you’ve made this our new national motto, please be specific as you explain it. Can you think, for example, of other institutions such as, I don’t know, marriage or military units in which the less people have in common, the more cohesive they are?" Now you're concerned about an assault on his house? Not the millions he assaulted on his show. Your transparency is showing again.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
All that can be summed up in one sentence. Trump can't take tough questions so Acosta is out.

Like I said, it's a matter of his bucking protocols that are necessary for sharing time between reporters and actually allowing the President to give full answers. Here's the full footage of the exchange, so we have something to work with:


As you will see, Mr. Acosta kept interrupting the President so that he couldn't answer. If someone has a history of doing that, I would say that alone is reason to argue that there's no point in having them there. The press members I want questioning the President are those who will actually allow him to provide an answer.

As you will also see, Mr. Acosta had already been allowed to ask multiple questions, and was given answers to them in so far as it was even possible. His question about invasion was unclear, lending to a perspective-based answer, as "invasion" has multiple possible senses. It doesn't always only refer to outright military invasion.

His insistence on being granted a continuous stream of questions is just unacceptable, and he has a history of pulling the same sort of stunt. In this case he was quite forceful about it, and I'm not just referring to the arm action, as yes, that was likely reflexive. I mean he was very forceful vocally and was disrupting the next reporter's turn to ask questions.

If Obama had done it you have been screaming how un-American he is and how unfit he is and how affirmative action got him there.

Lmao. No, it was Chicago-style politics that got Mr. Obama into office.

How do you know what I would have said? You don't have a clue what I think of the 44th.

Nor do you have a solid sense of exactly how defensive I am of the Trump administration. Truthfully, on an average American scale, my approach to him is somewhat ambivalent. But when I am immersed in a violently anti-Trump atmosphere, what I have to say naturally tends to be more defensive.

You didn't give a crap when Tucker Carlson went on his racist assault "How, precisely, is diversity our strength? Since you’ve made this our new national motto, please be specific as you explain it. Can you think, for example, of other institutions such as, I don’t know, marriage or military units in which the less people have in common, the more cohesive they are?" Now you're concerned about an assault on his house? Not the millions he assaulted on his show. Your transparency is showing again.

I don't see anything wrong with those remarks though. How is it "assault" to offer remarks on basic questions of diversity vs. cohesion?

I bring the Carlson case up because the press can just as much be threatened by vigilante action as it can be by the government. However, much of our press is demonstrating bias in covering a left-liberal reporter being hindered while ignoring a conservative reporter being attacked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SonyToyo
D

deleted15807

Guest
Like I said, it's a matter of his bucking protocols that are necessary for sharing time between reporters and actually allowing the President to give full answers. Here's the full footage of the exchange, so we have something to work with:


As you will see, Mr. Acosta kept interrupting the President so that he couldn't answer. If someone has a history of doing that, I would say that alone is reason to argue that there's no point in having them there. The press members I want questioning the President are those who will actually allow him to provide an answer.

As you will also see, Mr. Acosta had already been allowed to ask multiple questions, and was given answers to them in so far as it was even possible. His question about invasion was unclear, lending to a perspective-based answer, as "invasion" has multiple possible senses. It doesn't always only refer to outright military invasion.

His insistence on being granted a continuous stream of questions is just unacceptable, and he has a history of pulling the same sort of stunt. In this case he was quite forceful about it, and I'm not just referring to the arm action, as yes, that was likely reflexive. I mean he was very forceful vocally and was disrupting the next reporter's turn to ask questions.

It was the non-existent assault(accusing him of "placing his hands on" a young female intern) Sarah Sanders Huckabee gave for the reason of his ban when he was preventing her from taking the mike out of his hand. Being rude isn't a valid reason.


Lmao. No, it was Chicago-style politics that got Mr. Obama into office.

Somehow always Chicago Chicago Chicago comes up. Then the next word is "urban" followed by "violence". Wink wink you know who we are talking about. Oh and turn off the news of the latest mass shooting by another "lone wolf".


I don't see anything wrong with those remarks though. How is it "assault" to offer remarks on basic questions of diversity vs. cohesion?

That I am certain of. Fear is a very useful tool to manipulate humans. And brain studies have shown conservative brains are more activated by fear than liberals. Foxy News and republican strategists know that and know how to get some massive erections out of their voters and have them running for the polls based on fear driven lies. 307 mass shootings this year by guess who? Not immigrants, not Mexicans, not Muslims but you better fear them anyway. Nice cohesion going on malakos.