4 ms·

>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 questio

>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.
- humantiy 8y ago
  If that is the point he spent about 30 mins answering that question in detail less than a week ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksmkp5CwF_4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksmkp5CwF_4 Much of what I said above was previously said by trump in that brief. If jim acosta is cnn's chief white house correspondent I assume he was there or certainly knew of this and reviewed it. It is safe to say its his job and that he had the reasoning behind why he called it an invasion already. This is part of the problem many times he has already answered the question with detail or given a reason and its not fully reported on or the press just ask again thinking the answer will all of a sudden flip. I agree we can knock him for not always giving a lot of detail then you can also knock the media's coverage or how they ask their questions since they seem to have the same answer and not getting to the root of what they are looking for. You could say jim could have asked "can you elaborate on why you call it an invasion" vs the way he started by saying I'm going to challenge you and no its not an invasion and go around in circles with this. It doesn't matter though since whats done is done and its comes down to that's not how I would ask that question or how I would want that question answer. We're monday morning quarterbacking. you're not always going to get the answer you want and that is under every administration I've seen.

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.

humantiy 8y ago
If that is the point he spent about 30 mins answering that question in detail less than a week ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksmkp5CwF_4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksmkp5CwF_4 Much of what I said above was previously said by trump in that brief. If jim acosta is cnn's chief white house correspondent I assume he was there or certainly knew of this and reviewed it. It is safe to say its his job and that he had the reasoning behind why he called it an invasion already. This is part of the problem many times he has already answered the question with detail or given a reason and its not fully reported on or the press just ask again thinking the answer will all of a sudden flip. I agree we can knock him for not always giving a lot of detail then you can also knock the media's coverage or how they ask their questions since they seem to have the same answer and not getting to the root of what they are looking for. You could say jim could have asked "can you elaborate on why you call it an invasion" vs the way he started by saying I'm going to challenge you and no its not an invasion and go around in circles with this. It doesn't matter though since whats done is done and its comes down to that's not how I would ask that question or how I would want that question answer. We're monday morning quarterbacking. you're not always going to get the answer you want and that is under every administration I've seen.