CNN journalist Jim Acosta banned from White House

[MikeMcMann]

Seek help.

Do you actually think it would be even remotely challenging?

 

[HereticBD]

Do you actually think it would be even remotely challenging?

Do you actually think anyone gives a shit about your obsession with us?

You're behaving like a jaded ex-girlfriend, and are essentially just talking to yourself at this point. Its a little disturbing.

 

[dontsnitch]

Do you actually think it would be even remotely challenging?

In essence you're betting that you've learned people's political opinions. Hardly a feat, these people are here daily explaining their politics. Very weird gotcha attempt.

 

[glenwo2]

Also.... this recent tweet by the weirdo is just classic.

"we"

 

[MikeMcMann]

Do you actually think anyone gives a shit about your obsession with us?

You're behaving like a jaded ex-girlfriend, and are essentially just talking to yourself at this point. Its a little disturbing.

haha you hate being busted. It is amusing.

You absolutely know your partisan talking points are obvious and unoriginal.

 

[MikeMcMann]

In essence you're betting that you've learned people's political opinions. Hardly a feat, these people are here daily explaining their politics. Very weird gotcha attempt.

If you are not hopelessly partisan what you are saying is not true. You can have diverging opinions on a number of topics. Just because someone is right or conservative does not mean they have to defend Trump in the Acosta situation. They could find 'both' to be at fault. A hyper partisan will find a way to say Trumps actions were 'irrelevant'. You cannot predict that in every conservative but you can in ever hyper partisan. Just as I was easily able to predict that neither Inga or Heretic would comment on the video where Trump later attacks Abby with no provocation. Since there were no obvious talking points out nor any clear Trump defense they will simply ignore that. Again you can be conservative or right leaning and yet still say Trump was wrong or crossed a line. But a hyper partisan cannot.

So no, you are incorrect.

 

[dontsnitch]

If you are not hopelessly partisan what you are saying is not true. You can have diverging opinions on a number of topics. Just because someone is right or conservative does not mean they have to defend Trump in the Acosta situation. They could find 'both' to be at fault. A hyper partisan will find a way to say Trumps actions were 'irrelevant'. You cannot predict that in every conservative but you can in ever hyper partisan. Just as I was easily able to predict that neither Inga or Heretic would comment on the video where Trump later attacks Abby with no provocation. Since there were no obvious talking points out nor any clear Trump defense they will simply ignore that. Again you can be conservative or right leaning and yet still say Trump was wrong or crossed a line. But a hyper partisan cannot.

So no, you are incorrect.

You know their politics because they post their politics.

 

[HereticBD]

If you are not hopelessly partisan what you are saying is not true. You can have diverging opinions on a number of topics. Just because someone is right or conservative does not mean they have to defend Trump in the Acosta situation. They could find 'both' to be at fault. A hyper partisan will find a way to say Trumps actions were 'irrelevant'. You cannot predict that in every conservative but you can in ever hyper partisan. Just as I was easily able to predict that neither Inga or Heretic would comment on the video where Trump later attacks Abby with no provocation. Since there were no obvious talking points out nor any clear Trump defense they will simply ignore that. Again you can be conservative or right leaning and yet still say Trump was wrong or crossed a line. But a hyper partisan cannot.

So no, you are incorrect.

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[MikeMcMann]

You know their politics because they post their politics.

You are free to think what you want but you are wrong if you think every single republican or conservative will have an absolutely predictable reply to any Trump situation. That a conservative or Republican cannot say 'while I like Trump, I do not agree with X'. A hyper partisan is different as the merits of the discussion mean nothing to them. They are just taking a side and must defend their side regardless of merit.

But if you want to believe every republican or conservative is also a hyper partisan along that vein, feel free. But you are wrong.

 

[dontsnitch]

You are free to think what you want but you are wrong if you think every single republican or conservative will have an absolutely predictable reply to any Trump situation.

I never said anything close to that.

This is a political forum. People come here and explain their politics. I can also predict people's positions because I read what they say, it's not because they're hacks. This is obviously a personal feud which doesn't interest me.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I never said anything close to that.

This is a political forum. People come here and explain their politics. I can also predict people's positions because I read what they say, it's not because they're hacks. This is obviously a personal feud which doesn't interest me.

No you still do not get it.

Even if you know someone here is generally pro Obama, you CANNOT say what their position would be on an argument with a reporter in terms of who was rude and who was not. Most people are not that predictable on stuff like that. Sure you can guess their politics, but not every single thing outside politics. But with a hyper partisan that is different.

So if your point is that 'I already know those two are hyper partisan and therefore it is no surprise I can predict them' then yes you are right and we both agree they are hyper partisans and thus predictable as they do not offer any original thought. Just partisan lines. But they do not admit to just being hyper partisan and that is the point you are missing. And if they are not then again NO you cannot and I cannot predict how they would respond to things like arguments between a reporter and the POTUS. There are lots of Left and Right people on this forum whose politics we can all predict but who could also admit a POTUS was wrong in an argument that was not political in nature.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You want to AV or Sig bet that I can give via PM to someone almost to the word the arguments that you and @HereticBD will reply to a certain topic in the very near future? I will PM someone that I am pretty sure we would both respect, at some random point in the near future with almost your exact talking points before you say them.

Want to make that bet?

I'm open to such a bet. Of course, you'll need to give more details as to how the bet will be structured.

1. If you give the topic ahead of time it will be easy for me to just be cagey on that topic. But if you don't give the topic then it's easy to find a topic with relatively predicable responses. You'll need to define how this will work.

2. Almost to the word is a steep standard. It's also somewhat vague. It will need to be better defined.

3. Who will judge how close you were? I'm not satisfied that you can accurately portray the responses I've already given to you in this thread. So who will determine whether you cam close enough or not? Also, if you guess my response in part, but my overall response was more complex, does that count, etc

If you want to go forward with this, I suspect we ought to go over to the bet thread.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'm open to such a bet. Of course, you'll need to give more details as to how the bet will be structured.

1. If you give the topic ahead of time it will be easy for me to just be cagey on that topic. But if you don't give the topic then it's easy to find a topic with relatively predicable responses. You'll need to define how this will work.

2. Almost to the word is a steep standard. It's also somewhat vague. It will need to be better defined.

3. Who will judge how close you were? I'm not satisfied that you can accurately portray the responses I've already given to you in this thread. So who will determine whether you cam close enough or not? Also, if you guess my response in part, but my overall response was more complex, does that count, etc

If you want to go forward with this, I suspect we ought to go over to the bet thread.

Ya i would not give you the topic ahead of time but that could be fun too. It would force you to have to go off script and maybe be critical of Trump which might be worth it even if I lost the bet. But the idea is simply that I pre supply a range of responses to an issue (likely mostly talking points) that I predict (know) you will repeating to that topic to defend Trump and when you do, I have those revealed by the person who I gave them to prior. We would need to do it over a span of about 6 months to ensure sufficient time. If you never engage the topic I guess at, then its a push.

We would pick a mutually acceptable holder and judge.

I've heard people speak of the 'bet' thread but have never seen it. Is it in this forum?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Ya i would not give you the topic ahead of time but that could be fun too. It would force you to have to go off script and maybe be critical of Trump which might be worth it even if I lost the bet. But the idea is simply that I pre supply a range of responses to an issue (likely mostly talking points) that I predict (know) you will repeating to that topic to defend Trump and when you do, I have those revealed by the person who I gave them to prior. We would need to do it over a span of about 6 months to ensure sufficient time. If you never engage the topic I guess at, then its a push.

We would pick a mutually acceptable holder and judge.

I've heard people speak of the 'bet' thread but have never seen it. Is it in this forum?

The bet thread is stickied up top in this forum.

Being critical of Trump has been easy for me. I've done it in this thread. Hell, I've done it comments you've quoted as being supportive of Trump. Trump has several very obvious flaws. One of them fit perfectly in the context of this thread, namely his often boorish behavior.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The bet thread is stickied up top in this forum.

Being critical of Trump has been easy for me. I've done it in this thread. Hell, I've done it comments you've quoted as being supportive of Trump. Trump has several very obvious flaws. One of them fit perfectly in the context of this thread, namely his often boorish behavior.

ya ya, I am not talking about that. You will give around the edges for pretense. I am talking about the substantive stuff.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

ya ya, I am not talking about that. You will give around the edges for pretense. I am talking about the substantive stuff.

LOl?

Our conversation in this thread has been entirely about relatively insubstantial peripherals. When have you ever discussed any of Trump's substantial policies with me?

 

[floivanus]

You're embarrassing yourself.

Not unlike Acosta

 

[lilelvis]

The one trying to take the mic? She looked pretty young to me.

You forgot to mention, wood!

 

[nac386]

An expert confirming the video used by Huckabee Sanders was altered:

https://www.apnews.com/c575bd1cc3b1456cb3057ef670c7fe2a

Conway saying that speeding something up is not the same as altering it, Lol.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kellyanne-conway-makes-truth-bending-164824116.html

This is hilarious:

“Well, Chris, first of all,” Conway responded, “What do you mean by edited, or as others are saying, ‘doctored video?’ He either put his hands on her and grabbed the mic back or he did not, and he clearly did.”

“The video was altered, and there are experts who have looked at it,” Wallace said.

This is where Conway went into ultimate spin mode.

“By that do you mean sped up? Oh, well that’s not altered, that’s sped up,” she said. “They do it all the time in sports to see if there’s actually a first down or a touchdown, so I have to disagree with the, I think, overwrought description of this video being doctored as if we put somebody else’s arm in there.”

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

I dont recall having much interaction with you. I mostly just remember you as the guy who made Panamaican flip out in anger.

But if pressed, I'd have classified you as a right winger with a slight reactionary streak: like Madmick, but probably a little farther right socially and less reactionary/irrationally hostile.

But to survive as a right winger in the current partisan environment, you have to either be very stupid or very intellectually dishonest and inconsistent. It seems like you've ran into the latter class of people.

Your relationship with Madmick is a lot like the left's relationship with Trump. You bitch and moan that he's this crazy tyrant, but he leaves your posts up. If someone on the right took a shot like that at Fogie or Pan or Rupert, they'd get their post deleted and possibly carded or banned.

People stage these huge anti Trump protests and he just sits back and maybe calls them stupid. But if someone makes one little comment about the left on social media they get their entire life ruined.

One day you'll wake and realize you and your ilk are more a followers of Stalin than Trotsky. You just want to be in charge. You don't want justice you just want power.