Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Gelston]

I think he was grandstanding. Acosta had a legitimate question, Trump didn't want to answer it, and Acosta pushed it further than he should have. That said, Trump was a complete asshole to use the structure of the press briefing and the safety of his podium to abuse Acosta.

"abuse" him. Okay.

[Wrathbringer]

I think he was grandstanding. Acosta had a legitimate question, Trump didn't want to answer it, and Acosta pushed it further than he should have. That said, Trump was a complete asshole to use the structure of the press briefing and the safety of his podium to abuse Acosta.

You're retarded.

[Parkbandit]

I think he was grandstanding. Acosta had a legitimate question, Trump didn't want to answer it, and Acosta pushed it further than he should have.

What specifically was Acosta's "legitimate question" that Trump "didn't want to answer"?

That said, Trump was a complete asshole to use the structure of the press briefing and the safety of his podium to abuse Acosta.

I'm completely convinced you looked at all the evidence and came to this conclusion in an unbiased and non-political way...

[Methais]

I think he was grandstanding. Acosta had a legitimate question, Trump didn't want to answer it, and Acosta pushed it further than he should have. That said, Trump was a complete asshole to use the structure of the press briefing and the safety of his podium to abuse Acosta.

Is that a yes or is that a no for "Was Acosta being disruptive?"

[Methais]

[BriarFox]

I think Acosta was being annoying and grandstanding, but I also think he had a legitimate question at the core, about why Trump was so invested in depicting a migrant caravan as an invasion. Obviously, he was fear-mongering as a distraction from key midterms issues, and equally obviously, it backfired given the election results.

What's really at stake here is the representation of events. Trump has proven over and over that he'll just make up his own version of events with no evidence whatsoever for whatever purpose he has in mind. A free press threatens that ability, and so he attacks it and tries to delegitimize it.

Now, I've answered your question, so you tell me, do agree with Trump's comment in the exchange with Acosta that CNN is "fake news" and "the enemy of the people?" Do you agree that Trump should be able to say whatever he wants whenever he wants regardless of the truth?

Trump and people like him, including Marco Rubio and Rick Scott during the Florida elections, who were baselessly accusing the Democrats of fraud, are undermining faith in public institutions and feeding a black hole of disinformation. The dangerous thing is that people believe them, and that pits Americans against each and against the nation itself. If (and hopefully when) Trump loses in 2020, I am very afraid that he will declare the election illegitimate and try to rile people up to support him, and God knows where that will lead. Are you not concerned about that?

Also, trying to look at things objectively isn't the same thing as not having an opinion, PB. You're humping that angle like a sick dog.

[Gelston]

I think Acosta was being annoying and grandstanding, but I also think he had a legitimate question at the core, about why Trump was so invested in depicting a migrant caravan as an invasion. Obviously, he was fear-mongering as a distraction from key midterms issues, and equally obviously, it backfired given the election results.

What's really at stake here is the representation of events. Trump has proven over and over that he'll just make up his own version of events with no evidence whatsoever for whatever purpose he has in mind. A free press threatens that ability, and so he attacks it and tries to delegitimize it.

Now, I've answered your question, so you tell me, do agree with Trump's comment in the exchange with Acosta that CNN is "fake news" and "the enemy of the people?" Do you agree that Trump should be able to say whatever he wants whenever he wants regardless of the truth?

Trump and people like him, including Marco Rubio and Rick Scott during the Florida elections, who were baselessly accusing the Democrats of fraud, are undermining faith in public institutions and feeding a black hole of disinformation. The dangerous thing is that people believe them, and that pits Americans against each and against the nation itself. If (and hopefully when) Trump loses in 2020, I am very afraid that he will declare the election illegitimate and try to rile people up to support him, and God knows where that will lead. Are you not concerned about that?

No. It would lead no where. If he loses, he loses and he isn't President anymore. And you people blame Trump for fearmongering.

[BriarFox]

Listening to Trump's rhetoric and taking it seriously isn't fear-mongering; it's honesty. Expecting that his words will never lead to actions, on the other hand, is delusion.

[Methais]

I think Acosta was being annoying and grandstanding, but I also think he had a legitimate question at the core, about why Trump was so invested in depicting a migrant caravan as an invasion. Obviously, he was fear-mongering as a distraction from key midterms issues, and equally obviously, it backfired given the election results.

What's really at stake here is the representation of events. Trump has proven over and over that he'll just make up his own version of events with no evidence whatsoever for whatever purpose he has in mind. A free press threatens that ability, and so he attacks it and tries to delegitimize it.

Now, I've answered your question, so you tell me, do agree with Trump's comment in the exchange with Acosta that CNN is "fake news" and "the enemy of the people?" Do you agree that Trump should be able to say whatever he wants whenever he wants regardless of the truth?

Trump and people like him, including Marco Rubio and Rick Scott during the Florida elections, who were baselessly accusing the Democrats of fraud, are undermining faith in public institutions and feeding a black hole of disinformation. The dangerous thing is that people believe them, and that pits Americans against each and against the nation itself. If (and hopefully when) Trump loses in 2020, I am very afraid that he will declare the election illegitimate and try to rile people up to support him, and God knows where that will lead. Are you not concerned about that?

Also, trying to look at things objectively isn't the same thing as not having an opinion, PB. You're humping that angle like a sick dog.

Now, I've answered your question,

No you didn't. I didn't ask if he was grandstanding. I asked if he was being disruptive.

Let's try this again. Simply answer either "yes" or "no" and then you can add your wall of text after:

Was Acosta being disruptive?

[Gelston]

Listening to Trump's rhetoric and taking it seriously isn't fear-mongering; it's honesty. Expecting that his words will never lead to actions, on the other hand, is delusion.

How many times have you seen Republicans taking to the streets and burning cars and shits after elections? It isn't us who do that.