Sarah Sanders Refuses to Say Press Isn’t ‘Enemy of the People’ in Jawdropping Clash With Jim Acosta

Boom? I'm not "backing down" in the face of an utterly dishonest claim by a slobbering Trump supporter that I backed Bill and Hillary Clinton.

You'll note he's unwilling to deal with the fact real wages have gone down since the Bloviator-in-Chief took office. How about you--wanna take a crack at it?

 

I love beef, too, but only after it's done medium rare on the BBQ.

Acosta came across as whining. We all know Trump and his stooges are lying sacks of sh't, so Acosta should have stuck to asking questions that matter.

 

No. Answer the question.

 

The fact that you call the Post “far left” reveals all we need to know about your deeply skewed political perspective.

You realize my initial post never claimed there would be a lie every day, right? I was just pointing out that Trump lies so often that if you picked a random day, he probably told a lie on it.

And while some of his incorrect claims may qualify as opinion or simply being wrong, many are straight-up lies. And when he repeats a falsehood even after they are debunked, it becomes a lie.

Not really, Like or hate Obamacare, it has not been a “total disaster” by any objective measure. It’s sort of like claiming evolution is a myth; it sounds like opinion, but it’s factually wrong.

But fine. Call it opinion and exclude that one.

The lie is is his hypocrisy, using data he previously attacked as “nonsense”.

Further, we were already at a historical low when Trump took office. The rate has continued to decline, in more or less a straight line — there was no change in the trend line when Trump was elected. So trying to claim credit is also a lie.

I’ll also add that in order to find those two examples, you had to scroll past HUNDREDS of straight-up lies and misleading statements. Your cherry-picking doesn’t erase those instances.

Again, I point you to the hundreds of straight-up lies he has told, and the hundreds of times he has repeated already debunked lies.

You should have stopped while you were ahead. There is a difference between legal and colloquial language. When people refer colloquially to collusion, they’re talking about the same thing that the law refers to as “conspiracy.” So Trump is playin word games, and that is a form of lying.

 

Why would I waste my time with a fake news site, when I’ve already debunked most of the first 10 examples as BS? Trump told me to ignore that ****.

If Cons are so ***** now that Warren’s and Booker’s comments are now violent harassment (in the top 10 for Christ’s sake!), even though they didn’t even single anyone out, than congratulations on taking over the snowflake role in our country.

*******.

 

you didnt debunk crap
you make the claim most of the top ten aren't violent attacks but that isn't the claim made the list is comprised of violent attacks and harassment
and they mostly use local news as the sources to compile the list

so even if you cut the list in half or more it still beats out anything you can claim that has done to the media

zero attacks and half a dozen incidences of harassment

 

Hmm, an alternate account is a HUGE no-no. I was on the verge of permaban once and created a new user account. I was busted within a couple of days and hadn't even used the account yet. I'm amazed at how many lefties get by with it.

 

Booker's comments are not harrassment. Warren's comments are not harassment. Harassment typically involves repeatedly doing things that make the victim fear for bodily injury. Neither Warren nor Booker followed anyone. Booker certainly never called for any action against anyone, and while the phrase "get in one's face" could be interpreted as a call for violence, that certainly isn't definitive; it is very often used to mean nonviolent yet angered confrontations. Smashing Trump's "Star" is not harassment; it's vandalism, which some may think of as a small difference, but that their was no physical harm done to anyone. And the links for the new #1 & #2 spots (tire slashing and Owen harrassment don't take me to a local news source as you claim; #1 goes to some guy's twitter account with a video of his slashed tires and no evidence for how they go that way (this is the very definition of fake news; how do we know it's not staged?), and #2 is Owen's twitter claiming to be ATTACKED by ANTIFA, although she doesn't provide and details, and claims to have been then followed by them while chanting. In the legal sense, I doubt that would be harassment because then every paparazzi or news camera crew following someone who doesn't want to be questioned would be guilty. She might feel harassed, but that doesn't really matter. I believe in order for following someone to be guilty of illegal harassment, it must occur repeatedly by that same person.

And I'm claiming less than half are legit, and of the one's that are, I don't think many would even hold up to the legal definition of harassment. They're just examples of people who "feel" harassed. Besides such nonviolent "harassment" ought to be supported. Not spitting, punching, slashing, etc, of course, but I'm fine with calling people out in the street and following them, either to shame them for some controversial policy, or asking to them to explain a controversial policy, be they either from the left or the right.

I'm not sure what this is is reference to. You mean against the media? If so, and if you're seriously considering Booker's comments harassment, why wouldn't you include every anti-media comment Trump has made as harassment?

 

best you educate yourself on the definition of harassment

harassment
the act or an instance of harassing, or disturbing, pestering, or troubling repeatedly; persecution:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/harassment


Harassment is behavior which is intended to trouble or annoy someone, for example repeated attacks on them or attempts to cause them problems.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/harassment

you don't to get to make up your own absurd definition to fit your argument

 

Yes, repeatedly, in both your definitions, like I said, and even your second definition implies a direct victim, like I said. Generalized statements wouldn’t fit even your definition, which I fail to how is so dramatically different from my own, which I summarized from a legal website.

So Booker’s out, Warren’s out. In fact, by your definition, Owen’s claim it out- the video showed her being followed once

By the way, why do I get the feeling I’ve seen more of this list at this point than you have?

And also, don’t you think, that if you’re going to include Booker’s one comment as harassment, than everything anti-media comment Trump has made is also Harassment? If you say no, can you explain that double standard. Or did you ignore that part of my last ost because I misinterpreted that enigmatic fragment that cut off your earlier response.

Furthermore, can you offer more proof than just a random twitter video that that guy’s tires were slashed by left-wing vandals and not himself for a fake news video?