• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should President Trump and Mr. Acosta have a chat?

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
7,670
Reaction score
2,895
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I got this idea from an article in the December, 2018, (print) edition of the Reader's Digest, pages 118 - 121. The article is entitled "Unfreeze Your Brain."


*****


The author writes: "[A]s difficult as it can sometimes be, talking to people who disagree with you is good for your brain. So if you hate conspiracy theories and run into someone who believes that we faked the moon landing, don't walk away. Have tea with him or her. It can broaden your thinking in countless ways (my emphasis)."


1. I assume that the author means that although you will NOT necessarily change your mind about the moon landings, the interaction with the conspiracy theorist will "thaw frozen thinking in general, even in contexts unrelated to the original discussion (the author's words)."


a. For example, the author points out that -- contrary to what many of us assume -- when we are ill, it may be better sometimes to consult novice medical doctors, who are more "open-minded" than doctors with many years' experience, who tend "to form opinions quickly, based on experience."


*****


You will remember that President Obama invited a university professor and a police officer (who had been involved in an unpleasant encounter) to come to the White House to have a chat so that each could better understand the other's feelings.


If President Trump and Mr. Jim Acosta had lunch together and discussed their feelings, perhaps one or both of them could "unfreeze" some of their thoughts, at least to some degree.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump is in a war and he sees Acosta as part of the enemy. Lunch would be useless and a waste of time as Trump is not changing and in fact only getting worse with each passing week.
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I got this idea from an article in the December, 2018, (print) edition of the Reader's Digest, pages 118 - 121. The article is entitled "Unfreeze Your Brain."


*****


The author writes: "[A]s difficult as it can sometimes be, talking to people who disagree with you is good for your brain. So if you hate conspiracy theories and run into someone who believes that we faked the moon landing, don't walk away. Have tea with him or her. It can broaden your thinking in countless ways (my emphasis)."


1. I assume that the author means that although you will NOT necessarily change your mind about the moon landings, the interaction with the conspiracy theorist will "thaw frozen thinking in general, even in contexts unrelated to the original discussion (the author's words)."


a. For example, the author points out that -- contrary to what many of us assume -- when we are ill, it may be better sometimes to consult novice medical doctors, who are more "open-minded" than doctors with many years' experience, who tend "to form opinions quickly, based on experience."


*****


You will remember that President Obama invited a university professor and a police officer (who had been involved in an unpleasant encounter) to come to the White House to have a chat so that each could better understand the other's feelings.


If President Trump and Mr. Jim Acosta had lunch together and discussed their feelings, perhaps one or both of them could "unfreeze" some of their thoughts, at least to some degree.


As long as Jim Acosta brought some crayons for the President to express himself, it might work.

trumpcoloring book.jpg
 

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
26,006
Reaction score
9,417
I got this idea from an article in the December, 2018, (print) edition of the Reader's Digest, pages 118 - 121. The article is entitled "Unfreeze Your Brain."


*****


The author writes: "[A]s difficult as it can sometimes be, talking to people who disagree with you is good for your brain. So if you hate conspiracy theories and run into someone who believes that we faked the moon landing, don't walk away. Have tea with him or her. It can broaden your thinking in countless ways (my emphasis)."


1. I assume that the author means that although you will NOT necessarily change your mind about the moon landings, the interaction with the conspiracy theorist will "thaw frozen thinking in general, even in contexts unrelated to the original discussion (the author's words)."


a. For example, the author points out that -- contrary to what many of us assume -- when we are ill, it may be better sometimes to consult novice medical doctors, who are more "open-minded" than doctors with many years' experience, who tend "to form opinions quickly, based on experience."


*****


You will remember that President Obama invited a university professor and a police officer (who had been involved in an unpleasant encounter) to come to the White House to have a chat so that each could better understand the other's feelings.


If President Trump and Mr. Jim Acosta had lunch together and discussed their feelings, perhaps one or both of them could "unfreeze" some of their thoughts, at least to some degree.


The approach you suggest, the two coming together to speak is for rational actors. Trump has an agenda that precludes rational.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I got this idea from an article in the December, 2018, (print) edition of the Reader's Digest, pages 118 - 121. The article is entitled "Unfreeze Your Brain."


*****


The author writes: "[A]s difficult as it can sometimes be, talking to people who disagree with you is good for your brain. So if you hate conspiracy theories and run into someone who believes that we faked the moon landing, don't walk away. Have tea with him or her. It can broaden your thinking in countless ways (my emphasis)."


1. I assume that the author means that although you will NOT necessarily change your mind about the moon landings, the interaction with the conspiracy theorist will "thaw frozen thinking in general, even in contexts unrelated to the original discussion (the author's words)."


a. For example, the author points out that -- contrary to what many of us assume -- when we are ill, it may be better sometimes to consult novice medical doctors, who are more "open-minded" than doctors with many years' experience, who tend "to form opinions quickly, based on experience."


*****


You will remember that President Obama invited a university professor and a police officer (who had been involved in an unpleasant encounter) to come to the White House to have a chat so that each could better understand the other's feelings.


If President Trump and Mr. Jim Acosta had lunch together and discussed their feelings, perhaps one or both of them could "unfreeze" some of their thoughts, at least to some degree.

Obama accused the officer of "BEHAVING STUPIDLY" with no knowledge of the facts.


We all saw what the flaming jackass, Acosta did.

Screw him. He is insignificant,
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,412
Reaction score
21,578
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
...1. I assume that the author means that although you will NOT necessarily change your mind about the moon landings, the interaction with the conspiracy theorist will "thaw frozen thinking in general, even in contexts unrelated to the original discussion (the author's words)."

…You will remember that President Obama invited a university professor and a police officer (who had been involved in an unpleasant encounter) to come to the White House to have a chat so that each could better understand the other's feelings.


If President Trump and Mr. Jim Acosta had lunch together and discussed their feelings, perhaps one or both of them could "unfreeze" some of their thoughts, at least to some degree.

In order for such communication to be possible, both parties must at least have a willingness to discuss the issue with both a modicum of civility and an open mind.

However, as you can see from the first 3 responses to your OP here...:

Trump is in a war and he sees Acosta as part of the enemy. Lunch would be useless and a waste of time as Trump is not changing and in fact only getting worse with each passing week.

As long as Jim Acosta brought some crayons for the President to express himself, it might work.

The approach you suggest, the two coming together to speak is for rational actors. Trump has an agenda that precludes rational.

...people can be fairly set in their ways of thinking.

As such, if their antipathy for their opponent's views is so deeply ingrained then nothing would be gained from such an encounter except a reinforcement of their own biases.

That is amply demonstrated in this Forum, where "discussions" on a daily basis with hard-core ideologues have seldom changed anyone's viewpoints.

So IMO if Trump and Acosta had such a "sit-down," they would chew at each other for a bit and then leave the meeting with each believing he had won his own point over the other and go right back to their confrontations with nothing changed.
 
Last edited:

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In order for such communication to be possible, both parties must at least have a willingness to discuss the issue with an open mind.

However, as you can see from the first 3 responses to your OP here...:







...people can be fairly set in their ways of thinking.

As such, their antipathy for their opponent's views is so deeply ingrained that nothing would be gained from such an encounter except a reinforcement of their own biases.

That is amply demonstrated in this Forum, where "discussions" on a daily basis with hard-core ideologues have seldom changed anyone's viewpoints.

"And when you're talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. "

Sorry,I'm quite right. The President not only has the complexion of a cheeto, he has a matching IQ. Easily the dumbest person to ever serve in the office of President
 

OlNate

Shameless Canuck
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
20,496
Reaction score
11,760
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I would suggest no, this would not work. In order to reconcile differences, the root cause must be addressed. In this situation, the root cause of this conflict is that Trump is lying, reporters (in this case Acosta, but point in just about any direction and you'll find a reporter that Trump has denounced) are calling him out for it, and he hates that. Since lying is integral to Trump's political strategy, there will be no addressing the root cause, therefore resolution is impossible.

What I think would be better is to have Acosta and Trump square off in a charity boxing event. At least then someone might benefit...if Trump doesn't steal all the money collected for the charity... ;)
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,412
Reaction score
21,578
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I would suggest no, this would not work. In order to reconcile differences, the root cause must be addressed. In this situation, the root cause of this conflict is that Trump is lying, reporters (in this case Acosta, but point in just about any direction and you'll find a reporter that Trump has denounced) are calling him out for it, and he hates that. Since lying is integral to Trump's political strategy, there will be no addressing the root cause, therefore resolution is impossible.

What I think would be better is to have Acosta and Trump square off in a charity boxing event. At least then someone might benefit...if Trump doesn't steal all the money collected for the charity... ;)

To be fair, if the statement's made by Trump in the media "lie count" support your viewpoint, then one must also admit that this same media are also "serial liars."

We have example after example of both MSM and alternate-media exaggerations, misstatements, and intentional lies when speaking of or reporting about the President's actions.

We also have examples of media-favored public figures who exaggerate, misstate, and lie quite frequently, but thanks to their positive press relationship were seldom monitored or called out on it to the extent our current President has been.

Admittedly, President Trump has been more accessible to the Press than most other Presidents, and is the first President to embrace social media so openly (IMO Twitter is not his friend though) so that there is more grist for the media mill.

But IMO anyone who is truly honest with themselves will at the very least recognize that the "liar-in-chief" meme is being perpetuated as simply another route to attack the legitimacy of this particular President because he is at war with the Media.
 
Last edited:

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
7,670
Reaction score
2,895
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
...people can be fairly set in their ways of thinking.


Exactly!

Here are some more comments from that article:

1. In life, once on a path, we tend to follow it, for better or worse."

2. "The political theorist Hannah Arendt coined the phrase frozen thoughts to describe deeply held ideas that we no longer question but should."

a. "Frozen thinking has nothing to do with intelligence, she said. 'It can be found in highly intelligent people.' "
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,548
Reaction score
29,823
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I got this idea from an article in the December, 2018, (print) edition of the Reader's Digest, pages 118 - 121. The article is entitled "Unfreeze Your Brain."


*****


The author writes: "[A]s difficult as it can sometimes be, talking to people who disagree with you is good for your brain. So if you hate conspiracy theories and run into someone who believes that we faked the moon landing, don't walk away. Have tea with him or her. It can broaden your thinking in countless ways (my emphasis)."


1. I assume that the author means that although you will NOT necessarily change your mind about the moon landings, the interaction with the conspiracy theorist will "thaw frozen thinking in general, even in contexts unrelated to the original discussion (the author's words)."


a. For example, the author points out that -- contrary to what many of us assume -- when we are ill, it may be better sometimes to consult novice medical doctors, who are more "open-minded" than doctors with many years' experience, who tend "to form opinions quickly, based on experience."


*****


You will remember that President Obama invited a university professor and a police officer (who had been involved in an unpleasant encounter) to come to the White House to have a chat so that each could better understand the other's feelings.


If President Trump and Mr. Jim Acosta had lunch together and discussed their feelings, perhaps one or both of them could "unfreeze" some of their thoughts, at least to some degree.

Some comments...

1. If these two guys sat down and talked about issues they disagree on, they would be sitting there and talking for approximately 27 days straight. I don't think either one of them want to do such a thing.

2. There are two major issues...at least, from the point of view of one of the guys...that could be zeroed in on. That would be Acosta's constant desire to attack Trump and the lack of controlling his behavior when attacking. I'm not confident that, even if he sat down to talk about those two specific issues, that Acosta has the ability to honestly address those two issues.

3. This is probably the most important consideration: Why should Trump make any effort? He is in the position of power. Heck, when Acosta does stupid stuff, it ends up helping Trump with his supporters.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I got this idea from an article in the December, 2018, (print) edition of the Reader's Digest, pages 118 - 121. The article is entitled "Unfreeze Your Brain."


*****


The author writes: "[A]s difficult as it can sometimes be, talking to people who disagree with you is good for your brain. So if you hate conspiracy theories and run into someone who believes that we faked the moon landing, don't walk away. Have tea with him or her. It can broaden your thinking in countless ways (my emphasis)."


1. I assume that the author means that although you will NOT necessarily change your mind about the moon landings, the interaction with the conspiracy theorist will "thaw frozen thinking in general, even in contexts unrelated to the original discussion (the author's words)."


a. For example, the author points out that -- contrary to what many of us assume -- when we are ill, it may be better sometimes to consult novice medical doctors, who are more "open-minded" than doctors with many years' experience, who tend "to form opinions quickly, based on experience."


*****


You will remember that President Obama invited a university professor and a police officer (who had been involved in an unpleasant encounter) to come to the White House to have a chat so that each could better understand the other's feelings.


If President Trump and Mr. Jim Acosta had lunch together and discussed their feelings, perhaps one or both of them could "unfreeze" some of their thoughts, at least to some degree.

Trump attacks those who attack him. The solution, report the news without attacking Trump and then Trump won't attack you. Both Acosta and CNN are nothing but partisan rags with an agenda to take Trump down because they didn't want him there in the first place. A legitimate news journalist and news media wouldn't have an agenda, they would just report the news. There is a reason why CNN scrapes the basement in ratings.
 

Mason66

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
26,741
Reaction score
6,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I got this idea from an article in the December, 2018, (print) edition of the Reader's Digest, pages 118 - 121. The article is entitled "Unfreeze Your Brain."


*****


The author writes: "[A]s difficult as it can sometimes be, talking to people who disagree with you is good for your brain. So if you hate conspiracy theories and run into someone who believes that we faked the moon landing, don't walk away. Have tea with him or her. It can broaden your thinking in countless ways (my emphasis)."


1. I assume that the author means that although you will NOT necessarily change your mind about the moon landings, the interaction with the conspiracy theorist will "thaw frozen thinking in general, even in contexts unrelated to the original discussion (the author's words)."


a. For example, the author points out that -- contrary to what many of us assume -- when we are ill, it may be better sometimes to consult novice medical doctors, who are more "open-minded" than doctors with many years' experience, who tend "to form opinions quickly, based on experience."


*****


You will remember that President Obama invited a university professor and a police officer (who had been involved in an unpleasant encounter) to come to the White House to have a chat so that each could better understand the other's feelings.


If President Trump and Mr. Jim Acosta had lunch together and discussed their feelings, perhaps one or both of them could "unfreeze" some of their thoughts, at least to some degree.

NO, Trump doesn't need to waste his time to meet with Acosta to discuss feelings.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The approach you suggest, the two coming together to speak is for rational actors. Trump has an agenda that precludes rational.

SIAP. At least, Trump answered Acosta's salvo of questions-interrogations and was willing to answer more questions-interrogations from the White House press corps while Acosta refused to give the mike to any other reporter. Trump, rational. Acosta not so much.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
22,544
Reaction score
10,044
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If President Trump and Mr. Jim Acosta had lunch together and discussed their feelings, perhaps one or both of them could "unfreeze" some of their thoughts, at least to some degree.
No way, no how. The differences between Acosta (and most Americans) and Trump go much deeper than any policy issues. Trump is a pathologic liar, mega narcissist, and bigoted. Those personal traits will preclude any sort of “meeting of the minds”.
 

OlNate

Shameless Canuck
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
20,496
Reaction score
11,760
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
To be fair, if the statement's made by Trump in the media "lie count" support your viewpoint, then one must also admit that this same media are also "serial liars."

We have example after example of both MSM and alternate-media exaggerations, misstatements, and intentional lies when speaking of or reporting about the President's actions.

We also have examples of media-favored public figures who exaggerate, misstate, and lie quite frequently, but thanks to their positive press relationship were seldom monitored or called out on it to the extent our current President has been.

Admittedly, President Trump has been more accessible to the Press than most other Presidents, and is the first President to embrace social media so openly (IMO Twitter is not his friend though) so that there is more grist for the media mill.

But IMO anyone who is truly honest with themselves will at the very least recognize that the "liar-in-chief" meme is being perpetuated as simply another route to attack the legitimacy of this particular President because he is at war with the Media.

I don't know if I can admit that the media are *serial* liars. Speculators, ok. Biased, definitely. And certainly there are any number of venues outside of the MSM that engage regularly in fabrications and click bait nonsense. But I wonder what an itemized list of actual lies (which I unreservedly happen) from the MSM would look like when compared to a list of actual lies from the President? I mean, consider:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-claims-in-558-days/?utm_term=.b8c5f6b11856

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

If they are even half right, that's staggering. Could an MSM source still stand with that kind of track record? "Liar-in-chief" is an unfortunate moniker, and an inflammatory one, but I'm not sure it's undeserved. And when one declares war on the media, what kind of treatment should one expect from them?

But we're talking about Acosta and Trump here...one incident, and in that incident it was very clear that the issue was Acosta was calling Trump out for lying, which caused Trump to lose his composure and control instantly, and escalated from there. If you want to talk about the general state of truth in America, I can probably give you more wiggle room. But this incident was clear. Acosta was not lying, Trump was, and he took out his discomfort at being called out on the reporter, who, in my opinion, was just doing his job. Yes, he broke etiquette and protocol. But I'm not sure how much instructive precedent there is for the press on what to do with a President that stands in front of a press conference, and blatantly and unrepentantly lies, and throws temper tantrums when challenged. They're not even clever lies.

I'm sorry, Cap'n. I have given Trump props a couple times, and I'm trying to be as fair as I can be here, but sometimes a guy really is as bad as they say he is. That Trump is a villain is a discussion had and done, I don't think there's even all that many supporters that would deny that, and a good number that would brag about it, if DP can be considered a reasonable poll. I have very little sympathy for the man, and think how Acosta has been treated by him, and his supporters, has been totally off the rails - especially the utter balderdash around the so-called "assault" on the intern. While I tend to agree with some of what you've said, it's like someone talking about a volcano, and being asked to consider a lit cigarette.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
80,880
Reaction score
48,962
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I got this idea from an article in the December, 2018, (print) edition of the Reader's Digest, pages 118 - 121. The article is entitled "Unfreeze Your Brain."


*****


The author writes: "[A]s difficult as it can sometimes be, talking to people who disagree with you is good for your brain. So if you hate conspiracy theories and run into someone who believes that we faked the moon landing, don't walk away. Have tea with him or her. It can broaden your thinking in countless ways (my emphasis)."


1. I assume that the author means that although you will NOT necessarily change your mind about the moon landings, the interaction with the conspiracy theorist will "thaw frozen thinking in general, even in contexts unrelated to the original discussion (the author's words)."


a. For example, the author points out that -- contrary to what many of us assume -- when we are ill, it may be better sometimes to consult novice medical doctors, who are more "open-minded" than doctors with many years' experience, who tend "to form opinions quickly, based on experience."


*****


You will remember that President Obama invited a university professor and a police officer (who had been involved in an unpleasant encounter) to come to the White House to have a chat so that each could better understand the other's feelings.


If President Trump and Mr. Jim Acosta had lunch together and discussed their feelings, perhaps one or both of them could "unfreeze" some of their thoughts, at least to some degree.

Trump doesn't surround himself with people who may disagree with him, I don't think he can handle people disagreeing with him.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,412
Reaction score
21,578
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
But we're talking about Acosta and Trump here...one incident, and in that incident it was very clear that the issue was Acosta was calling Trump out for lying, which caused Trump to lose his composure and control instantly, and escalated from there.

Except Trump was not "lying" regarding the "caravan comment" that Acosta was calling him out on. IMO you should really review that conversation again, taking the assumption blinders off.

Acosta wasn't even asking a question, he was making a speech and asking the President to agree with him. He kept going on and on challenging the President until Trump had enough and told him no more "questions," pass the mike.

I'm sorry, Cap'n. I have given Trump props a couple times, and I'm trying to be as fair as I can be here, but sometimes a guy really is as bad as they say he is. That Trump is a villain is a discussion had and done, I don't think there's even all that many supporters that would deny that, and a good number that would brag about it, if DP can be considered a reasonable poll. I have very little sympathy for the man, and think how Acosta has been treated by him, and his supporters, has been totally off the rails - especially the utter balderdash around the so-called "assault" on the intern. While I tend to agree with some of what you've said, it's like someone talking about a volcano, and being asked to consider a lit cigarette.

Trump as a "villain" is the meme that has been pushed since before he was elected. Prior to his election it was considered a mean joke because no one who made such statements expected him to be elected.

Then just re-watch the reactions of both the media talking-heads and those self-satisfied public naysayers who were so assured of the win...lose their minds! Screaming to the sky? Claiming the worst calamity had come...Satan was in the White House? Swiftly followed with attack, attack, attack, resist, resist, resist, even before the man took office. Mental health "professionals" violating their code of ethics to diagnose him with all sorts of mental defects. Professors and government officials posting "petitions" on how bad he was going to be in office and they could never support him. Then there were the massive "leaks" of anything and everything by "former and current officials" to undermine the Administration in his first six months in office. Then, of course, "Russia Collusion" and the never-ending Mueller investigation.

I'm sorry but my problem is that Trump was never given a chance. :no:

The MSM (aside from FOX and one or two newspapers) gives him NO credit. They studiously ignore or downplay any successes, while broadcasting everything his Administration does in the worst light possible.

Fortunately (IMO) Trump didn't care, and has refused to bow to Media pressures. IMO the fact that he is in his 70's (meaning he is pretty set in his ways), allows him to stick to his guns and do what he thinks is best. This despite constant media attacks and the groupthink of so many of our citizens who still can't accept that he was legally elected.

Trump's "lies" are usually bombast, fluffing, or exaggeration to make himself look good in the face of negative press. Other's are simply mistakes of fact because he was making hasty generalizations based on his own views speaking off the cuff without checking before he spoke. Yet, I don't see any malicious "lies" of intent, although I do agree he would do well to vet many statements with his staff before he makes such mistakes.

So I for one do not buy into the "serial liar" propaganda, because as I pointed out in my previous reply to you, both the MSM and other major public figures have been "lying" pretty regularly themselves and IMO with actual, malicious intent to deceive.

That's how I see it anyway.
 
Last edited:

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
26,006
Reaction score
9,417
SIAP. At least, Trump answered Acosta's salvo of questions-interrogations and was willing to answer more questions-interrogations from the White House press corps while Acosta refused to give the mike to any other reporter. Trump, rational. Acosta not so much.

LOL, you seem to respect truth as much as your Golden Idol.

But, do go on.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
LOL, you seem to respect truth as much as your Golden Idol.

But, do go on.

I'm confused. Did Trump not answer Acosta's questions-interrogations? Were there not other reporters in the White House Q&A who wanted to question-interrogate the president? Did Acosta give up the mike to allow some other reporter to question-interrogate the president?

BTW, I consider a question-interrogation to be a two part question followed by a possible third which is the established norm for this White House press corps while Trump is president. Acosta went far beyond that.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Trump doesn't surround himself with people who may disagree with him, I don't think he can handle people disagreeing with him.

Ever heard of the guy who's the White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly?
 

OlNate

Shameless Canuck
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
20,496
Reaction score
11,760
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Except Trump was not "lying" regarding the "caravan comment" that Acosta was calling him out on. IMO you should really review that conversation again, taking the assumption blinders off.

Acosta wasn't even asking a question, he was making a speech and asking the President to agree with him. He kept going on and on challenging the President until Trump had enough and told him no more "questions," pass the mike.



Trump as a "villain" is the meme that has been pushed since before he was elected. Prior to his election it was considered a mean joke because no one who made such statements expected him to be elected.

Then just re-watch the reactions of both the media talking-heads and those self-satisfied public naysayers who were so assured of the win...lose their minds! Screaming to the sky? Claiming the worst calamity had come...Satan was in the White House? Swiftly followed with attack, attack, attack, resist, resist, resist, even before the man took office. Mental health "professionals" violating their code of ethics to diagnose him with all sorts of mental defects. Professors and government officials posting "petitions" on how bad he was going to be in office and they could never support him. Then there were the massive "leaks" of anything and everything by "former and current officials" to undermine the Administration in his first six months in office. Then, of course, "Russia Collusion" and the never-ending Mueller investigation.

I'm sorry but my problem is that Trump was never given a chance. :no:

The MSM (aside from FOX and one or two newspapers) gives him NO credit. They studiously ignore or downplay any successes, while broadcasting everything his Administration does in the worst light possible.

Fortunately (IMO) Trump didn't care, and has refused to bow to Media pressures. IMO the fact that he is in his 70's (meaning he is pretty set in his ways), allows him to stick to his guns and do what he thinks is best. This despite constant media attacks and the groupthink of so many of our citizens who still can't accept that he was legally elected.

Trump's "lies" are usually bombast, fluffing, or exaggeration to make himself look good in the face of negative press. Other's are simply mistakes of fact because he was making hasty generalizations based on his own views speaking off the cuff without checking before he spoke. Yet, I don't see any malicious "lies" of intent, although I do agree he would do well to vet many statements with his staff before he makes such mistakes.

So I for one do not buy into the "serial liar" propaganda, because as I pointed out in my previous reply to you, both the MSM and other major public figures have been "lying" pretty regularly themselves and IMO with actual, malicious intent to deceive.

That's how I see it anyway.

Cap'n, we disagree mightily on this guy, and I hope we would give each other credit for not being hysterical kool aid drinkers. I'm sure you have your reasons to believe in this man, and you've been honest about some of the shortcomings (if begrudgingly) and I've done my best to be honest as well. I've watched the video a couple hundred times now, mainly in an effort to come to a decision around the so called "assault", but I've heard the exchange over and over again. I feel I'm familiar with the material, and I stand by what I said. I'm on the record in here saying while I didn't necessarily approve of the reporter's conduct, Trump was the one that was clearly out of control in that situation.

I wouldn't fault the media for not giving him a chance, because the American people should never given him a chance. He's been a disgrace. Yes he has. But it should be noted that the rare time he acts like a proper American president, he IS given credit - the most recent example being the praise he received for his criminal justice reform. Perhaps if Trump started acting like a president, he'd be treated like one.

I do not consider the fact that Trump gets called out for lying to be propaganda. That doesn't even make sense, as what good would propaganda do against a sitting president? Despite Leftist anthems of impeachment, it's never going to happen, so you guys are stuck with him for the full four years at least, during which time a president should have plenty of time to prove their worth, and make their detractors look foolish - if they can. No, what you generously and graciously refer to as "bombast, fluffing, or exaggeration" is flat out, deliberate, lying. As I've said before, either he's a liar or a schlemiel. In your estimation, which is better suited to the presidency of the most powerful country in the world?

I agree, the press has had a field day with this man...and maybe, at times, have been unfair. But as far as I can tell, this is a situation of Trump's own making. One more reason to replace the man and get your country back.

In my opinion, of course. :)
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist

Are you allowed to straw man by cherry picking my post then commenting on the cherry pick? Logically, you shouldn't be allowed.

Here's what the whole post of mine consisted of:
I'm confused. Did Trump not answer Acosta's questions-interrogations? Were there not other reporters in the White House Q&A who wanted to question-interrogate the president? Did Acosta give up the mike to allow some other reporter to question-interrogate the president?

BTW, I consider a question-interrogation to be a two part question followed by a possible third which is the established norm for this White House press corps while Trump is president. Acosta went far beyond that.
 
Top Bottom