3 ms·

No doubt the issue of trying to make this guy look like a woman beater is horrible. I would counterpoint that it probably should be someone elses job to us for

No doubt the issue of trying to make this guy look like a woman beater is horrible. I would counterpoint that it probably should be someone elses job to us force to get the mic back. I’m sure there are officers of some kind in that room.

lucozade 8y ago
> probably should be someone elses job to us[e] force to get the mic back I'd quite like to think that it shouldn't be anybodies job to use force to get a microphone back from a journalist in a press conference.
- lucozade 8y ago
  Nor should it be anybody’s chagrin to suffer bad grammar. Apologies.
ajross 8y ago
Sorry, why would you need to "use force" to prevent a followup question? Trump was literally refusing to answer the question. Journalistic norms going back long before the invention of the microphone say that's not kosher and you have to have an answer. I mean, if we're going to throw norms to the wind and (literally!) push journalists around to control the questions being asked, then we probably don't want to have a press conference in the first place. The solution is certainly not to have the secret service rough up Jim Acosta because Donald Trump doesn't like the question he asked.
- humantiy 8y ago
  >Trump was literally refusing to answer the question. He answered the question, but Jim didn't like the argument.
  - moate 8y ago
    He gave a non-answer to the question "why are you categorizing it as an invasion" by saying "because I consider it an invasion". Why is this an invasion and not "a group of refugees and asylum seekers"? Why are you using specific, strong, and decisive language to demonize this group? What is illegal about seeking asylum, since presumably that's what this group would want to do in order to enter the country? It is being pointedly obtuse to say that his answer would be considered satisfactory by anyone. That's not to say that the situation didn't get heated on both sides, but let's not pretend Trump was just being a super nice guy by staying off the golf course long enough to answer these assholes' questions and didn't deserve to get some serious questions answered after a midterm election.
    - humantiy 8y ago
      >He gave a non-answer to the question "why are you categorizing it as an invasion" by saying "because I consider it an invasion". Jim also answered the question for him when he asked by saying because it is not an invasion. He asked a question that he had the correct answer to it already, which is why trump said we have a difference of opinions. >It is being pointedly obtuse to say that his answer would be considered satisfactory by anyone. He answered the question(s) no he doesn't feel he is demonizing immigrants and that he wants to come in legally and also says we need immigrants to fill the job growth we have. I don't see that as a poor answer. Would it have been been better if the president said its an invasion because they've already broken through border fences to Mexico saying "Nobody is going to stop us."[1] and if they are seeking asylum they need to follow the process and go to a legal port of entry to file an asylum request not jump our walls in hopes to avoid capture? [1] http://time.com/5429933/migrant-caravan-breaks-fence-guatemala-border-mexico/ http://time.com/5429933/migrant-caravan-breaks-fence-guatema...
      - moate 8y ago
        >>Would it have been been better if the president said its an invasion because they've already broken through border fences to Mexico saying "Nobody is going to stop us."[1] and if they are seeking asylum they need to follow the process and go to a legal port of entry to file an asylum request not jump our walls in hopes to avoid capture? YES! Yes it would! That's the point I'm trying to make. If you're in charge of making policy decisions, be able to defend them! Don't say "This new law is good because it's good" or "our enemy is our enemy because they're our enemy". If you're going to be the "Sorry I speak so directly it offends you" president, fucking own it and actually tell the truth or explain your thoughts.
- guilhas 8y ago
  So the 'Russian investigation' is a follow-up to the 'Migrant caravan'?

lucozade 8y ago

> probably should be someone elses job to us[e] force to get the mic back I'd quite like to think that it shouldn't be anybodies job to use force to get a microphone back from a journalist in a press conference.

lucozade 8y ago
Nor should it be anybody’s chagrin to suffer bad grammar. Apologies.

ajross 8y ago

Sorry, why would you need to "use force" to prevent a followup question? Trump was literally refusing to answer the question. Journalistic norms going back long before the invention of the microphone say that's not kosher and you have to have an answer. I mean, if we're going to throw norms to the wind and (literally!) push journalists around to control the questions being asked, then we probably don't want to have a press conference in the first place. The solution is certainly not to have the secret service rough up Jim Acosta because Donald Trump doesn't like the question he asked.

humantiy 8y ago
>Trump was literally refusing to answer the question. He answered the question, but Jim didn't like the argument.
- moate 8y ago
  He gave a non-answer to the question "why are you categorizing it as an invasion" by saying "because I consider it an invasion". Why is this an invasion and not "a group of refugees and asylum seekers"? Why are you using specific, strong, and decisive language to demonize this group? What is illegal about seeking asylum, since presumably that's what this group would want to do in order to enter the country? It is being pointedly obtuse to say that his answer would be considered satisfactory by anyone. That's not to say that the situation didn't get heated on both sides, but let's not pretend Trump was just being a super nice guy by staying off the golf course long enough to answer these assholes' questions and didn't deserve to get some serious questions answered after a midterm election.
  - humantiy 8y ago
    >He gave a non-answer to the question "why are you categorizing it as an invasion" by saying "because I consider it an invasion". Jim also answered the question for him when he asked by saying because it is not an invasion. He asked a question that he had the correct answer to it already, which is why trump said we have a difference of opinions. >It is being pointedly obtuse to say that his answer would be considered satisfactory by anyone. He answered the question(s) no he doesn't feel he is demonizing immigrants and that he wants to come in legally and also says we need immigrants to fill the job growth we have. I don't see that as a poor answer. Would it have been been better if the president said its an invasion because they've already broken through border fences to Mexico saying "Nobody is going to stop us."[1] and if they are seeking asylum they need to follow the process and go to a legal port of entry to file an asylum request not jump our walls in hopes to avoid capture? [1] http://time.com/5429933/migrant-caravan-breaks-fence-guatemala-border-mexico/ http://time.com/5429933/migrant-caravan-breaks-fence-guatema...
    - moate 8y ago
      >>Would it have been been better if the president said its an invasion because they've already broken through border fences to Mexico saying "Nobody is going to stop us."[1] and if they are seeking asylum they need to follow the process and go to a legal port of entry to file an asylum request not jump our walls in hopes to avoid capture? YES! Yes it would! That's the point I'm trying to make. If you're in charge of making policy decisions, be able to defend them! Don't say "This new law is good because it's good" or "our enemy is our enemy because they're our enemy". If you're going to be the "Sorry I speak so directly it offends you" president, fucking own it and actually tell the truth or explain your thoughts.
guilhas 8y ago
So the 'Russian investigation' is a follow-up to the 'Migrant caravan'?