He did call on someone else.  Acosta wouldn't pass the Mic.  The intern went to get the Mike and at the least Acosta acted like a jerk.  You don't treat young women like that especially those just trying to do their job.  

I respect Trump for roasting him and hope he keeps on roasting him.  

As for Trump appointed, republican appointees have a long history of turncoatery.

Yes, early on, he did call on someone else, and Jim did refuse to yield the floor but that was far from the end of it.
Initially, Jim was in the wrong for failing to hand over the microphone and let someone else from the press speak, but that kind of thing has happened at other events with other Presidents and other leaders.  All the leader has to do is refuse to answer and insist on moving on.  But only a couple of seconds later, the President was at fault for continuing to insult Jim and his employer even though supposedly he wanted to move on to someone else's question.  None of this would have made the news, and none of us would be debating whether Acosta put his hands on the intern, if the President had simply stopped talking about Jim and CNN and answered the next question.
None of the assembled press were there to find out the President's opinion of Jim or of CNN.
The President wanted the next news cycle to be about how much he hates CNN.

The insult was because of him touching the intern.  Funny how u leave that out.

---

Yes, early on, he did call on someone else, and Jim did refuse to yield the floor but that was far from the end of it.
Initially, Jim was in the wrong for failing to hand over the microphone and let someone else from the press speak, but that kind of thing has happened at other events with other Presidents and other leaders.  All the leader has to do is refuse to answer and insist on moving on.  But only a couple of seconds later, the President was at fault for continuing to insult Jim and his employer even though supposedly he wanted to move on to someone else's question.  None of this would have made the news, and none of us would be debating whether Acosta put his hands on the intern, if the President had simply stopped talking about Jim and CNN and answered the next question.
None of the assembled press were there to find out the President's opinion of Jim or of CNN.
The President wanted the next news cycle to be about how much he hates CNN.

The insult was because of him touching the intern.  Funny how u leave that out.

Trump's words in that moment did not make reference to the intern. That was a post-hoc rationalization of a very irrational and unnecessary diatribe from our very unnecessary and irrational President.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The insult was because of him touching the intern.  Funny how u leave that out.

Trump's words in that moment did not make reference to the intern. That was a post-hoc rationalization of a very irrational and unnecessary diatribe from our very unnecessary and irrational President.

You blamed him for calling on Acosta, "not breaking eye contact", and not "insisting" on moving on.

He did break eye contact. He did insist on moving on to the next reporter. 

Since he did the things you said he should've done, how is his behavior irrational and unnecessary? He did the things you said he should've done.

---

Trump's words in that moment did not make reference to the intern. That was a post-hoc rationalization of a very irrational and unnecessary diatribe from our very unnecessary and irrational President.

You blamed him for calling on Acosta, "not breaking eye contact", and not "insisting" on moving on.

He did break eye contact. He did insist on moving on to the next reporter. 

Since he did the things you said he should've done, how is his behavior irrational and unnecessary? He did the things you said he should've done.

He did them, and then he undid them. He lacks discipline and focus.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I hate Acosta and think he's a turd. I agreed with Trump's action/punishment... and I also agree with this judge ordering it be reissued.

The slap on the wrist for being a bad boy in the press pit served its purpose and exposed Jim for what he is.

If he keeps up his act though... Trump will find a way to make it stick.
Honestly... Acosta is a tool. And the press shouldn't want him around. CNN should send someone else.

But this is the Hollywood DC drama that everyone tunes in for these days.
It's gross.

And, of course, you don't hold Trump responsible for any of it, right?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

JagNGeorgia, try to disregard who the post was from and consider it on the merits.  Adam2012 is 100% right this time.
Maybe Trump could simply stop calling on Acosta.  He never had to call on Acosta in the first place, last week.
Trump called on Acosta so that he could take an opportunity to insult Acosta and the organization he works for.  At any time while Acosta was holding the mic, Trump could have broken eye contact and called on someone else.  He didn't.  He *wanted* to keep talking about Acosta and keep talking about CNN, to make *them* keep talking about *him*.
If you can't see that all of it, including what's being said today, was a theatrical move fit for professional wrestling or "reality" TV, please, go outside for a while and meet some real people and get a fresh perspective on life.

He did call on someone else.  Acosta wouldn't pass the Mic.  The intern went to get the Mike and at the least Acosta acted like a jerk.  You don't treat young women like that especially those just trying to do their job.  

I respect Trump for roasting him and hope he keeps on roasting him.  

As for Trump appointed, republican appointees have a long history of turncoatery.

Rulings on laws with which you, or anyone, happen to disagree is not "turncoatery".

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

They should just make it a point to not call on him and ignore him in the press conferences. That will drive Acosta more crazy than not being there.

The intern he assaulted could also file for a restraining order.

"assaulted"

So what's it called when someone grabs someone else's genitals without the other person's consent?

Or this...

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

https://youtu.be/WlRc_plUUBk

---

The insult was because of him touching the intern.  Funny how u leave that out.

Trump's words in that moment did not make reference to the intern. That was a post-hoc rationalization of a very irrational and unnecessary diatribe from our very unnecessary and irrational President.

So if someone grabs my daughter and I punch him in the face and call him a jerk then u get to pretend the two events are unrelated because I didn't fully spell out "you're a jerk because u grabbed my daughter?"  

Oh and by the way, in the process of calling on another reporter, which he did, they needed the microphone which is the whole reason that the young lady was dealing with the slezzebag and why he went wwe.  

The mental contortions people go into to try and drag down POTUS.

---

Trump's words in that moment did not make reference to the intern. That was a post-hoc rationalization of a very irrational and unnecessary diatribe from our very unnecessary and irrational President.

So if someone grabs my daughter and I punch him in the face and call him a jerk then u get to pretend the two events are unrelated because I didn't fully spell out "you're a jerk because u grabbed my daughter?"  

Oh and by the way, in the process of calling on another reporter, which he did, they needed the microphone which is the whole reason that the young lady was dealing with the slezzebag and why he went wwe.  

The mental contortions people go into to try and drag down POTUS.

Sure, if any man touched any woman in a private area or violently, any man who saw it could be forgiven for spontaneously reacting in anger. That's not what happened though. The intern does not look injured or offended. All Acosta did was cross his arms to defend the microphone. They made up this claim that Acosta was somehow violent as a justification after the fact.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I see Captain Conservative is here defending the Left again.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I see Captain Conservative is here defending the Left again.

He's as much of a conservative as Bruce Jenner is a woman.

---

I see Captain Conservative is here defending the Left again.

Even if you don't believe in it, you should realize that ethics is not a team sport.
You guys already do plenty of speaking out when the left leaning people do unethical stuff.
Then you want everyone to shut up and forget that they ever knew anything about ethics when the right does unethical stuff.  
In other forums, the reverse is true.  And in those forums, I make it my job to remind the leftists when their people have been unethical.  But there are no leftists on this forum.  No one here cheers for Democrats, so I don't have to bring that stuff up.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So if someone grabs my daughter and I punch him in the face and call him a jerk then u get to pretend the two events are unrelated because I didn't fully spell out "you're a jerk because u grabbed my daughter?"  

Oh and by the way, in the process of calling on another reporter, which he did, they needed the microphone which is the whole reason that the young lady was dealing with the slezzebag and why he went wwe.  

The mental contortions people go into to try and drag down POTUS.

Sure, if any man touched any woman in a private area or violently, any man who saw it could be forgiven for spontaneously reacting in anger. That's not what happened though. The intern does not look injured or offended. All Acosta did was cross his arms to defend the microphone. They made up this claim that Acosta was somehow violent as a justification after the fact.

She makes a definite pause when he blocks her out with his off hand and Trump notices.  

Anymore bridges to sell?  

Imagine if that was Brian Kemp at a debate with Stacey Abrams with a shared Mike.  There would be riots in the streets.

---

I see Captain Conservative is here defending the Left again.

Even if you don't believe in it, you should realize that ethics is not a team sport.
You guys already do plenty of speaking out when the left leaning people do unethical stuff.
Then you want everyone to shut up and forget that they ever knew anything about ethics when the right does unethical stuff.  
In other forums, the reverse is true.  And in those forums, I make it my job to remind the leftists when their people have been unethical.  But there are no leftists on this forum.  No one here cheers for Democrats, so I don't have to bring that stuff up.

So it's name change time now that you've leveled up.

I dub thee "Captain Conservative, Arbiter of Truth"

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I see Captain Conservative is here defending the Left again.

Even if you don't believe in it, you should realize that ethics is not a team sport.
You guys already do plenty of speaking out when the left leaning people do unethical stuff.
Then you want everyone to shut up and forget that they ever knew anything about ethics when the right does unethical stuff.  
In other forums, the reverse is true.  And in those forums, I make it my job to remind the leftists when their people have been unethical.  But there are no leftists on this forum.  No one here cheers for Democrats, so I don't have to bring that stuff up.

Geez, now your the self appointed savior of the left and sworn ethics police? Aside from that absurdity, let me be you for a second...”You’re wrong”, in that ethics is absolutely a team sport in America and modern societies. “Norms” are the very foundation of our system. Anyone who has had the most basic of classes in Consequential and Non-Consequential Ethics may be aware of why this is. I know there are folks who would love for Americans to be “ruled” by a singular morality no matter how twisted, but that isn’t who we are. The whole issue with debating politics today is the attempting to group into one box. Team comes into play when we need to decide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. (Utilitarianism liked or not) It can be debated to no end which group may get left out in decision making but there is no stopping it without undoing everything that makes up a functional society.

---

Trumpettes are so easily played. Donald knows what kind of act Acosta has, so he makes sure he calls on him. He's sure to get the reaction from Acosta he wants. He can then respond as a jerk and everyone is happy.

"Oh, they're being mean to my boy" - from the supporters of both sides.

Donald wasn't on television for nothing.

And I love how the Kavenaugh defenders are so quick to accuse Acosta of assault. Priceless.

High praise for Donald from you?  Are you ok?  Lol

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Sure, if any man touched any woman in a private area or violently, any man who saw it could be forgiven for spontaneously reacting in anger. That's not what happened though. The intern does not look injured or offended. All Acosta did was cross his arms to defend the microphone. They made up this claim that Acosta was somehow violent as a justification after the fact.

She makes a definite pause when he blocks her out with his off hand and Trump notices.  

Anymore bridges to sell?  

Imagine if that was Brian Kemp at a debate with Stacey Abrams with a shared Mike.  There would be riots in the streets.

Right. he blocked her out with his off hand. There was nothing violent about it. his hands didn't even touch her. his forearm crossed with hers, and not forcefully.
you're the one trying to sell this as an assault worthy of getting banned from a workplace. you're saying that Acosta should face consequences so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying nothing noteworthy happened so I have no burden of proof. I'm the one actually looking at it and saying what really happened. You are the one selling a bridge.
As for your last paragraph, that is nothing more than tired victim mentality and no one whose mind is open has time for it. "they won't let my side get away with behavior that I think the other side always engages in." Wah wah. I guess we went to different elementary schools but my elementary school teachers didn't tolerate that kind of excuse from me.  Actions are either right or wrong. we should judge your actions by you only and not by an allegation that other people get away with those actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, etcetera

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Even if you don't believe in it, you should realize that ethics is not a team sport.
You guys already do plenty of speaking out when the left leaning people do unethical stuff.
Then you want everyone to shut up and forget that they ever knew anything about ethics when the right does unethical stuff.  
In other forums, the reverse is true.  And in those forums, I make it my job to remind the leftists when their people have been unethical.  But there are no leftists on this forum.  No one here cheers for Democrats, so I don't have to bring that stuff up.

Geez, now your the self appointed savior of the left and sworn ethics police? Aside from that absurdity, let me be you for a second...”You’re wrong”, in that ethics is absolutely a team sport in America and modern societies. “Norms” are the very foundation of our system. Anyone who has had the most basic of classes in Consequential and Non-Consequential Ethics may be aware of why this is. I know there are folks who would love for Americans to be “ruled” by a singular morality no matter how twisted, but that isn’t who we are. The whole issue with debating politics today is the attempting to group into one box. Team comes into play when we need to decide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. (Utilitarianism liked or not) It can be debated to no end which group may get left out in decision making but there is no stopping it without undoing everything that makes up a functional society.

I think you're confusing politics with ethics.

Ethics is not a team sport. Consequentialism is a form of ethics, true. But if you're going to use consequentialism to justify what your side does, the other side gets to use it to justify what they do.

What you are describing is politics, which is a team sport. Ethics and politics overlap, of course. Sometimes you have to use ethics to evaluate a political claim, and sometimes you have to consider politics in evaluating an ethical claim, but mostly the two fields stand on their own. Ethics speaks to individual people and individual actions and politics speaking to institutions group behavior and whole systems of government and economics.

I'm not saying you're ever going to find a politician who is 100% ethical nor am I saying that my opinion of what is and is not ethical is somehow final.

But I am saying that ethics is one of the tools we have to preserve freedom and limited government. Holding our politicians to ethical standards and using the same standard for politicians we love as we do for politicians we hate, is a means of preserving freedom, and I'm concerned that people are losing sight of it as they get more and more excited about the team sport aspects of politics.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I see Captain Conservative is here defending the Left again.

Even if you don't believe in it, you should realize that ethics is not a team sport.
You guys already do plenty of speaking out when the left leaning people do unethical stuff.
Then you want everyone to shut up and forget that they ever knew anything about ethics when the right does unethical stuff.  
In other forums, the reverse is true.  And in those forums, I make it my job to remind the leftists when their people have been unethical.  But there are no leftists on this forum.  No one here cheers for Democrats, so I don't have to bring that stuff up.

There are plenty of outspoken liberals here. They don't need you defending them; they can do it for themselves. 

I'd believe this if you played the conservative role in threads where there are more liberals than conservatives. Besides, how can someone whom claims to be a Republican / conservative never speak up against those he disagrees with? Most of your viewpoints aren't even remotely conservative. 

She makes a definite pause when he blocks her out with his off hand and Trump notices.  

Anymore bridges to sell?  

Imagine if that was Brian Kemp at a debate with Stacey Abrams with a shared Mike.  There would be riots in the streets.

Right. he blocked her out with his off hand. There was nothing violent about it. his hands didn't even touch her. his forearm crossed with hers, and not forcefully.
you're the one trying to sell this as an assault worthy of getting banned from a workplace. you're saying that Acosta should face consequences so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying nothing noteworthy happened so I have no burden of proof. I'm the one actually looking at it and saying what really happened. You are the one selling a bridge.
As for your last paragraph, that is nothing more than tired victim mentality and no one whose mind is open has time for it. "they won't let my side get away with behavior that I think the other side always engages in." Wah wah. I guess we went to different elementary schools but my elementary school teachers didn't tolerate that kind of excuse from me.  Actions are either right or wrong. we should judge your actions by you only and not by an allegation that other people get away with those actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, etcetera

Just to be clear, unwanted physical contact isn't enough to be booted from the workplace? Who said it had to be violent? Who is even saying it is violent? Those sound like your words. Most people are just saying it's unacceptable.

I don't think you know how the burden of proof works. He touched her without her consent and without justification. Sure, it wasn't violent and I doubt people think it was harmful, but that's irrelevant when he was told to stop and refused AND then touched her to keep doing what he was told not to do. This isn't normal behavior, and you're saying it's on others to prove why this abnormal behavior is unacceptable.

---