Okay, this is epic

Author: Buddamoose

Posts

Total: 51
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6

Pot calling the kettle black on Trump calling Acosta rude, but lord that was a looooong time comin. About time he came out and said it. 

I think Trump was emboldened after every one of his endorsements won tbh. Acosta had to go and put his hands on the intern to stop her from getting the mic too apparently, preceding Acosta being chastised, so now he's gone from the WH(for now?o). Free to try and talk at CNN all day about how persecuted he is 😂. 

This was one of those situations that would have been so worth it if i were in Trumps shoes. Dude has family that is Jewish, and CNN has people on trying to attribute the recent synagogue shooting to him. Saying he's radicalized more people than ISIS, appealing to white nationalists, etc. I'd be ready to throw down tbh 😂

The worlds different reaction from Trump between MSNBC and CNN was funny. 

"Well you know how it(MSNBC) is, and i can't change that" 

"You wanna talk about voter suppression? Take a look at CNN's polling, that's voter suppression.(it was abysmally bad?)" 

🔥So Spicy🔥
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,108
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Buddamoose
Acosta banned from whitehouse because he accosted a female aide.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
That was sweet. But the WH should have bouncers to make reporters follow the rules. Big Canadian dudes who will MAKE entitled reporters give up the mic and shut up.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
when he walked away from the podium, I would have kept walking and said sorry folks this is over and you can thank him for it, and left.  He's doing THEM a favor talking as long and often as he does, they sure as hell are doing Trump any favors.  why these mics don't have a remote cut off switch i'll never understand.
1harderthanyouthink
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 256
0
1
3
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
1harderthanyouthink
0
1
3
What about the evidence that the WH used a doctored video to support their argument against Acosta?
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
It'll be hand waved away as either fake news or irrelevant.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
There is no shortage of coverage for this event.  What relevant information to the behavior of Mr. Acosta is missing from the video?
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
What about the evidence that the WH used a doctored video to support their argument against Acosta?

It was an edited video that zoomed in on the Acosta and the intern. 


The claim was that it was doctored in a fashion that speeds it up. But it's almost like things automatically look faster when they're zoomed in cause now the frames focus has changed, centered around a smaller area, which causes a blurry effect to movements outside it. 

For a comparison look at football broadcasts. When they take closer looks in replays such as on hits, they slow it down. This is necessarily to keep the picture itself clear and remove motion blur. The video is "doctored" in the sense that it zoomed in on the exchange. But the speeds from original, to zoom, if you actually comprehend how cameras operate, wasn't actually changed, it just looks that way as a natural by by product of zooming in. 

Seriously, the argument being made here is basically, "i did put my hands on her and refuse to acquiesce the mic after already asking a couple questions. But the video is doctored so that means I did nothing wrong!" 

No, even if the original offense was still committed. If you smash somebodies windows, and they come out with a video that shows you smashing their windows. It doesn't matter whether it's sped up or zoomed in. That doesn't change that you smashed their windows. What kind of fantasy world does one have to live in where that's what it means?
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
It was edited! Says the people being played for suckers cause they dont know how cameras and video editing work.

What next? Clearly if you look at the original video her arm looks like it moves far less when Acostas hand comes down on it!"

Yes, because the further away from something you are in perspective, the less perceptible movements appear. What more about our own senses and how cameras and editing works is it required we cover?
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
doctored how?  zooming in and looping is done all the time, can't be considered doctored, there was nothing added, removed or faked from watching the original and the zoomed.  I was actually watching when it happened and there's nothing 'doctored" unless you are seeing something different, if so a link is really needed.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Buddamoose
The claim was that it was doctored in a fashion that speeds it up. But it's almost like things automatically look faster when they're zoomed in cause now the frames focus has changed, centered around a smaller area, which causes a blurry effect to movements outside it. 

For a comparison look at football broadcasts. When they take closer looks in replays such as on hits, they slow it down. This is necessarily to keep the picture itself clear and remove motion blur. The video is "doctored" in the sense that it zoomed in on the exchange. But the speeds from original, to zoom, if you actually comprehend how cameras operate, wasn't actually changed, it just looks that way as a natural by by product of zooming in. 
No, it actually was, literally, sped up. Even factoring in the zoom.

Seriously, the argument being made here is basically, "i did put my hands on her and refuse to acquiesce the mic after already asking a couple questions. But the video is doctored so that means I did nothing wrong!" 
Two people can do things wrong. Just because one person does something wrong doesn't mean any and everything and all things done against them in response is automatically acceptable.

The White House shouldn't be using doctored footage as evidence against someone. Period. This statement is true, regardless of the factuality of the accusation.

And, if this was a court of law, you're absolutely right that the case of the prosecution would be diminished by the use of doctored evidence.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
Can someone explain how this works to me?  I would assume you need to cut frames to digitally "speed up" part of a video.  I can't verify this twitter guy's work.  Is there a doctored infowars video that matches exactly what Sarah Sanders uploaded onto her twitter?  
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Plisken
you can change the playback speed on files then save them, it's not complicated at all, even if it was sped up I don't see how that's relevant in anyway way, Acosta has gotten more leeway than he deserves for a very long time, he pushed her arm away, doesn't matter what video you watch, that's what happened, she was trying to get the microphone from him, she seemed to be in a hurry so not sure what exactly her job is/was, but no matter what speed you watch the video at, what happened happened.

here watch it in slow-mo 

Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 986
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Acosta is a notorious heckler, and Trump should've thrown him out long before he did.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Agreed on all points. But I think a White House that habitually lies is more concerning than an aggressive reporter.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
tbh I'm use to and expect politicians to lie, I mean how can you not be?  it just boils down to their skill at it.  Imo they didn't need to use what you see in the video as an excuse for the ban.  I'm not sure why they even went there other than to make Acosta look bad/worse than usual and perhaps gain some sympathy.  Acosta knows/knew the job of that intern, so he's a dick for many reasons and on many levels. To that end there should be several microphones which have a kill switch.  They should have left him holding a deactivated mic and given an active one to someone else, issue solved.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
tbh I'm use to and expect politicians to lie, I mean how can you not be?
The same is true of children, yet we still teach them otherwise and establish consequences.

I'm not sure why they even went there other than to make Acosta look bad/worse than usual and perhaps gain some sympathy.  
Less sympathy for themselves and more antipathy for Acosta and the press in general.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
what has surprised me is the other reporters don't put pressure on him or black ball him.  The time he uses and wastes is time they could be asking questions etc  He's like the basketball player who hogs the ball, shoots ever chance he can, and sucks at it.

I mean let's face it, he used his male strength to prevent her from take the mic which she grabbed, but using his left hand/arm to push her arm down.  Bit aggressive given the setting etc.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
children are generally teachable hehe  politicians who are mostly lawyers go through 8 years of grueling college to learn and hone this skill, and some make a great deal of money doing it.  But w/o going too far into the weeds, civility is all but dead, we are near the bottom imo as evidenced by violence against those whom they disagree with.  I see no turning back from the polarization.
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Swagnarok
Idio-ump is notorious heckler of truth and morality and should be Locked Away Today! Along with his Super-Trumpanzee shpeele.

He and they are disgrace to civilized humanity.  They ____ in the civilzed water and then stir it round and round to make it the smell worse and worse.

393 million guns in america and Trumpanzees still do not have enough guns.  Sick-n-the head.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
Holy crap, seems not long ago during the last president's administration it was thought to be in the low 300's, about one per person.  The market observers disagree about not having enough though, said to be in the "Trump slump" right now.  I wonder how many media devices we have.

Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
According to my 1 minute search there are thought to be over 300 million televisions and over 200 million smart phones in the US.  Over 10+ million tablets were sold recently in a single year.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,108
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
It's irrelevant. In today's meetoo witch hunt zeitgeist, merely touching a female without consent as a male is rape.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,108
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@mustardness
Orange man bad.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,108
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Buddamoose
Gaslighters gotta gas.
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Two people can do things wrong. Just because one person does something wrong doesn't mean any and everything and all things done against them in response is automatically acceptable.
And something being done wrongly to one who has done wrong, does not excuse the original wrongdoing.

The White House shouldn't be using doctored footage as evidence against someone. Period. This statement is true, regardless of the factuality of the accusation.
And, if this was a court of law, you're absolutely right that the case of the prosecution would be diminished by the use of doctored evidence.

Depending on to what extent it was doctored. Tampering with evidence is a crime, but tampered evidence does not necessarily excuse a party of guilt in a crime. If in a court of law the question would be, in the example,

"Did that person smash the windows?"

In this case the question is

"Did Acosta use force to prevent the microphone from being taken from him and passed to another reporter?"

Sped up or not, the question at hands answer doesn't change from yes to no. Sped up or not, guilt is established regardless of video tampering. 

Agreed on all points. But I think a White House that habitually lies is more concerning than an aggressive reporter.

If you're going to expand the scope of the issue, which is what you are doing here, then its usually a good idea for your portrayal is itself to not be predicated upon selectively specious points. 

"A white house that lies habitually" 

As compared to a press that lies habitually? As opposed to administration's for decades, and really the entire nations history, lying about all manner of things to a habitual extent? 

I agree that in comparison an administration lying is far more signifigant than a nominally "aggressive" act. It really wasn't aggressive fmpov either. But if ur talking about habitual lying in politics, the scope is now a specious comparison. In that it ignores preceding lies, and requires that lying during the current administration = that which it hasn't before, and changes the primary questions at hand.

If it's parsed along lines of that signifigance, then the question isnt even about just the action of the reporter anymore. It becomes a general "did the reporter get the opportunity to ask a fair amount of questions?" 

Yes, he asked 2(or 3) questions prior to the incident. That's fair, and if I'm not mistaken usually a reporter only gets one. So the reporter was given even more leeway than normal. How fascist, authoritarian, and corrupt.

And also includes  "was the reporters pass revoked unjustifiably?" 

Which itself is answered by examining what the reporter did. Which is itself clear, sped up or not, that he did act in a manner that merits revocation of a press pass. So it is justifiable. 

The only present evidence of something sinister going on is a released video that sure, does def look doctored given present evidence. But the "concern" is missing other key elements, and those elements illustrate the opposite of this being of great signifigance.

____________________

On an independent note, the whole "he was silencing me because I was asking tough questions!" Acosta is saying is funny.

I'm sure patronizing PotUS had nothing to do with it. 

Then to start in about Russia 😂. The lines was drawn on that in the speech if i recall by Trump himself. If the house starts investigating, the Senate will investigate the investigators. Two can play the, "show me the man I'll show you the crime" game.  

Or Dems can choose to work on bipartisan legislation, like desperately needed infrastructure reform among other opportunities presented by a split congress. But no, instead it's gonna be an hour and a half of mostly questions about white nationalism, patronizing Trump, and Russia, as if there was confusion about the line that was drawn there.
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
what has surprised me is the other reporters don't put pressure on him or black ball him

In 2017 there was some stuff from other reporters calling him out on it. He hasn't really stopped, yesterday was the last straw. He's been acting like an activist instead of a journalist for awhile now 😂.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
Generally, reporters should have a healthy fear in that room for being disorderly.  The proceeding of information needs to be prioritized for the American people alternatively without proper ethics and anyone would be correct in asserting the shame that Acosta represents.  Hopefully it's not being politicized more than it has to be.  Obviously there's an inherent interest for the Whitehouse to save face with all the leverage placed on it as acting with inappropriate authority against the press through the bully pulpit.  In reality, the press maintains more control over the president's ability to exercise it, but that doesn't matter. Sarah''s contradiction with Trump's rhetoric would be ironic to say the least.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,108
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Buddamoose
Many other reporters in the room were vocally upset at Acosta hogging the mike, standing up and interrupting, and not allowing anyone to have a turn. Typical of one who thinks illegal invaders should have a constitutional right to cut the line to citizenship. 
Aporia
Aporia's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 225
0
2
5
Aporia's avatar
Aporia
0
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Link to a case where "merely touching" a woman led to a rape conviction.