Hot Mic – Reuters Intentionally Cuts Camera Feed During Positive Bishop Jackson Remarks To Trump i

I think nothing burns a liberals butt more than a black person saying they are voting Trump,,,or a latino lol

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The church actually doesn't seem extremely large to begin with:
static.lakana.com...

But it looks quite packed here:
media.breitbart.com...

and here:
media.breitbart.com...

You mean, in the shots carefully designed to cover one section from the first six or seven rows, from Breitbart, Trump's official press outlet?

Where's the comparable shot from the rear of the sanctuary? Let's compare apples to apples. Why play silly games?

But, you guys see a full sanctuary, I don't. Others don't. /shrug

Let's get back to the point of the thread ... what was it that Reuters was supposedly "covering up" in the attested "feed cut" noted in the OP?

Still haven't heard anything concrete on that.

It's not possible to know the exact reason why unless the people who decided to cut tell us. Perhaps they were out of time and it's no big deal. perhaps they thought the optics and encouraging words towards trump were bad for Hillary. Regardless, it was a very odd time to cut the transmission.

a reply to: UKTruth

I haven't failed to prove anything.

You asked if I've ever been to a service in a predominately African American church. As it happens, I have.

If you knew what you were talking about ... you would know that the congregation regularly stands up, sits down, claps hands, etc. as the "spirit" moves them.

I've provided hard evidence, nothing you've provided counters that shot of the empty auditorium.

You're so desperate to "close the case" on an absolutely tangential point ... which makes me wonder ... "why?"

Why don't you answer the fundamental question posed here ... what was it that Reuters was "trying to cover up" by cutting the feed?

Surely, you've got an answer to that as well, from Breitbart or something, right?

Did angels appear and coronate Trump?

Did a Voice from Heaven speak and say "This is my beloved egomaniac, in whom I am well-pleased?"

What??? What was cut? What is being repressed?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The church actually doesn't seem extremely large to begin with:
static.lakana.com...

But it looks quite packed here:
media.breitbart.com...

and here:
media.breitbart.com...

You mean, in the shots carefully designed to cover one section from the first six or seven rows, from Breitbart, Trump's official press outlet?

Where's the comparable shot from the rear of the sanctuary? Let's compare apples to apples. Why play silly games?

But, you guys see a full sanctuary, I don't. Others don't. /shrug

Let's get back to the point of the thread ... what was it that Reuters was supposedly "covering up" in the attested "feed cut" noted in the OP?

Still haven't heard anything concrete on that.

It's not possible to know the exact reason why unless the people who decided to cut tell us. Perhaps they were out of time and it's no big deal. perhaps they thought the optics and encouraging words towards trump were bad for Hillary. Regardless, it was a very odd time to cut the transmission.

Thanks for the answer. SO you admit, as others have refused to, that there's no reason to assume anything nefarious, aside from what the eyewitnesses and employees present at the time stated.

Thanks.

originally posted by: beeeyotch
I think nothing burns a liberals butt more than a black person saying they are voting Trump,,,or a latino lol

Doesn't burn my butt ... of course, I'm a leftist rather than a liberal.

There are a few folks in every demographic that vote against their own interests ... lower-income White folks in the South have been voting Republican for years. /shrug

The vast majority of both demographics (Black and Latino) demonstrate in every poll that they are overwhelmingly against Trump. (As is most of America.)

Yet, the Trump Tru-Believers™ get so excited when they find one or a handful who are ... kind of like Trump at one of his rallies, remember "See! There's my African-American over there! Aren't you great!" or some such foolishness.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The church actually doesn't seem extremely large to begin with:
static.lakana.com...

But it looks quite packed here:
media.breitbart.com...

and here:
media.breitbart.com...

You mean, in the shots carefully designed to cover one section from the first six or seven rows, from Breitbart, Trump's official press outlet?

Where's the comparable shot from the rear of the sanctuary? Let's compare apples to apples. Why play silly games?

But, you guys see a full sanctuary, I don't. Others don't. /shrug

Let's get back to the point of the thread ... what was it that Reuters was supposedly "covering up" in the attested "feed cut" noted in the OP?

Still haven't heard anything concrete on that.

It's not possible to know the exact reason why unless the people who decided to cut tell us. Perhaps they were out of time and it's no big deal. perhaps they thought the optics and encouraging words towards trump were bad for Hillary. Regardless, it was a very odd time to cut the transmission.

Thanks for the answer. SO you admit, as others have refused to, that there's no reason to assume anything nefarious, aside from what the eyewitnesses and employees present at the time stated.

Thanks.

It's impossible to know the exact reason, but there is indeed reason to suspect (as opposed to assume) something nefarious.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: ugmold

No but the MSM sure keeps making a big deal of minorities being against Trump, don't they?

there are legal cases pertaining to his racism...unlike trump voters, the MSM does the research.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The church actually doesn't seem extremely large to begin with:
static.lakana.com...

But it looks quite packed here:
media.breitbart.com...

and here:
media.breitbart.com...

You mean, in the shots carefully designed to cover one section from the first six or seven rows, from Breitbart, Trump's official press outlet?

Where's the comparable shot from the rear of the sanctuary? Let's compare apples to apples. Why play silly games?

But, you guys see a full sanctuary, I don't. Others don't. /shrug

Let's get back to the point of the thread ... what was it that Reuters was supposedly "covering up" in the attested "feed cut" noted in the OP?

Still haven't heard anything concrete on that.

It's not possible to know the exact reason why unless the people who decided to cut tell us. Perhaps they were out of time and it's no big deal. perhaps they thought the optics and encouraging words towards trump were bad for Hillary. Regardless, it was a very odd time to cut the transmission.

Thanks for the answer. SO you admit, as others have refused to, that there's no reason to assume anything nefarious, aside from what the eyewitnesses and employees present at the time stated.

Thanks.

It's impossible to know the exact reason, but there is indeed reason to suspect (as opposed to assume) something nefarious.

Why?

YOu just said that there could be any number of reasons? Why assume something "nefarious"?

Is that your gut instinct? Intuition? What?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I haven't failed to prove anything.

You asked if I've ever been to a service in a predominately African American church. As it happens, I have.

If you knew what you were talking about ... you would know that the congregation regularly stands up, sits down, claps hands, etc. as the "spirit" moves them.

I've provided hard evidence, nothing you've provided counters that shot of the empty auditorium.

You're so desperate to "close the case" on an absolutely tangential point ... which makes me wonder ... "why?"

Why don't you answer the fundamental question posed here ... what was it that Reuters was "trying to cover up" by cutting the feed?

Surely, you've got an answer to that as well, from Breitbart or something, right?

Did angels appear and coronate Trump?

Did a Voice from Heaven speak and say "This is my beloved egomaniac, in whom I am well-pleased?"

What??? What was cut? What is being repressed?

You haven't provided any good evidence. You provided a photo taken at an unspecified time, showing people not just standing up but all the way at the front of the church in a crowd. It was also not when Trump was speaking.
You got fooled and don't seem to be able to back away from it. I have already provided conclusive proof that the picture you provided does not show the whole crowd that was there. I really don't know why you persist with such propaganda, but i'll leave you to it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The church actually doesn't seem extremely large to begin with:
static.lakana.com...

But it looks quite packed here:
media.breitbart.com...

and here:
media.breitbart.com...

You mean, in the shots carefully designed to cover one section from the first six or seven rows, from Breitbart, Trump's official press outlet?

Where's the comparable shot from the rear of the sanctuary? Let's compare apples to apples. Why play silly games?

But, you guys see a full sanctuary, I don't. Others don't. /shrug

Let's get back to the point of the thread ... what was it that Reuters was supposedly "covering up" in the attested "feed cut" noted in the OP?

Still haven't heard anything concrete on that.

It's not possible to know the exact reason why unless the people who decided to cut tell us. Perhaps they were out of time and it's no big deal. perhaps they thought the optics and encouraging words towards trump were bad for Hillary. Regardless, it was a very odd time to cut the transmission.

Thanks for the answer. SO you admit, as others have refused to, that there's no reason to assume anything nefarious, aside from what the eyewitnesses and employees present at the time stated.

Thanks.

It's impossible to know the exact reason, but there is indeed reason to suspect (as opposed to assume) something nefarious.

Why?

YOu just said that there could be any number of reasons? Why assume something "nefarious"?

Is that your gut instinct? Intuition? What?

I am not assuming anything. I said 'suspect'. The reasons for such suspicions are quite obvious - a media that have already admitted they are working to stop Trump.

a reply to: UKTruth

The evidence provided corroborates eyewitness accounts.

You have provided nothing that counters that.

Keep trying to muddy the water.

The answer is simple. Show me a photo taken from the rear of the sanctuary during the service, and I'll be glad to acknowledge that you are correct and I am wrong.

Until you do that, you're giving us your opinion, and merely muddying the water.

And on your other item "the media have admitted they're trying to stop Trump"???

What media exactly? Give us quotes? If not, you're selling rehashed Trump propaganda.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I know you are a bit slow, but it's quite clear who him is. Perhaps if you put the tiniest bit of effort in you wouldn't come off so dense.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The evidence provided corroborates eyewitness accounts.

You have provided nothing that counters that.

Keep trying to muddy the water.

The answer is simple. Show me a photo taken from the rear of the sanctuary during the service, and I'll be glad to acknowledge that you are correct and I am wrong.

Until you do that, you're giving us your opinion, and merely muddying the water.

And on your other item "the media have admitted they're trying to stop Trump"???

What media exactly? Give us quotes? If not, you're selling rehashed Trump propaganda.

Video provided. I don't need eye witnesses.
You can't escape the fact you passed on some propaganda.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

I know you are a bit slow, but it's quite clear who him is. Perhaps if you put the tiniest bit of effort in you wouldn't come off so dense.

/yawn You don't even understand basic pronoun reference and I'm a "bit slow."

Are you referring to the Reverend Jesse Jackson, rather than Bishop Jackson, as we have been discussing in the thread?

Okay, good. I've cleared that up for you ... now, what was it you wanted to claim about Jesse?

Go slow, remember how dumb I am.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The evidence provided corroborates eyewitness accounts.

You have provided nothing that counters that.

Keep trying to muddy the water.

The answer is simple. Show me a photo taken from the rear of the sanctuary during the service, and I'll be glad to acknowledge that you are correct and I am wrong.

Until you do that, you're giving us your opinion, and merely muddying the water.

And on your other item "the media have admitted they're trying to stop Trump"???

What media exactly? Give us quotes? If not, you're selling rehashed Trump propaganda.

Video provided. I don't need eye witnesses.
You can't escape the fact you passed on some propaganda.

Video provided that shows the same thing the photo does ... six or seven rows at the front of one section occupied, the majority empty.

I didn't pass on propaganda, you and the other Trump sycophants are desperately trying to gin up Trump's photo-op into something it isn't.

WHere's the shot from the back of the sanctuary that shows a full sanctuary, or 3/4 full as you "estimated"?

Show us that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

I know you are a bit slow, but it's quite clear who him is. Perhaps if you put the tiniest bit of effort in you wouldn't come off so dense.

/yawn You don't even understand basic pronoun reference and I'm a "bit slow."

Are you referring to the Reverend Jesse Jackson, rather than Bishop Jackson, as we have been discussing in the thread?

Okay, good. I've cleared that up for you ... now, what was it you wanted to claim about Jesse?

Go slow, remember how dumb I am.

lololol...even you couldn't help it, gryph....you've reached the point in ATS life where sarcasm becomes your friend...welcome to the club...I've got a sign in my garage that says "sarcasm is the bodies defense against stupid"

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, you are a bit slow. Read the post. I referenced your post where you specifically named Jesse Jackson. So yes, you are a bit slow, and it does seem like we have to treat you with little kid gloves to help you understand basic things. In this case, context and comprehension. Keep up.

You want to come off smart, but you come off lost and confused.

a reply to: jimmyx

Is the over use of ellipses your thing or are you trying to mask the inability to use proper punctuation?

a reply to: jimmyx

Logic, reason and facts don't seem to penetrate at times, do they?

You know it's interesting, this bit that the Trump media is wetting itself over in regard to Rev. Jackson in 1999 ... let's take a look at that:

At one point, Donald Trump appeared at a PUSH meeting where Jackson praised him for his commitment to “diversity” in the workplace. “I do want to thank you, Donald Trump, for being with us tonight,” Jackson said at the time. “We need your building skills, your gusto for people on Wall Street to represent diversity.”

The reverend went on to insist Trump’s success is “beyond argument” and warned people against missing it all saying, “one can miss his seriousness and his commitment.” “When we opened this Wall Street project … he gave us space at 40 Wall Street, which was to make a statement about our having a presence there,” Jackson said. “Beyond that, in terms of being inclusive, he’s done that too,” the Reverend concluded.

Link

So, Jesse Jackson, who is regularly damned in the right-wing media for being a sell-out, sycophantic, rabble-rouser, kissed the Donald's public butt because he got him a Wall Street Address (for a few months.)

Has anything changed in the last 17 years, you think?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The evidence provided corroborates eyewitness accounts.

You have provided nothing that counters that.

Keep trying to muddy the water.

The answer is simple. Show me a photo taken from the rear of the sanctuary during the service, and I'll be glad to acknowledge that you are correct and I am wrong.

Until you do that, you're giving us your opinion, and merely muddying the water.

And on your other item "the media have admitted they're trying to stop Trump"???

What media exactly? Give us quotes? If not, you're selling rehashed Trump propaganda.

Video provided. I don't need eye witnesses.
You can't escape the fact you passed on some propaganda.

Video provided that shows the same thing the photo does ... six or seven rows at the front of one section occupied, the majority empty.

I didn't pass on propaganda, you and the other Trump sycophants are desperately trying to gin up Trump's photo-op into something it isn't.

WHere's the shot from the back of the sanctuary that shows a full sanctuary, or 3/4 full as you "estimated"?

Show us that.

6 rows, lol. You are such a wind-up.
The evidence is all posted by myself and others for viewing pleasure.

We'll have to wait and see what the effect of Trump's brilliant speech to the African American community will be.

a reply to: raymundoko

Another pass and I'm done with your silly ... self.

You couldn't even manage to be clear in what you referenced .. .and that's my fault.

Who has to treat me with kid gloves (refers to the leather, not children ... you screwed up that reference too)? Not you bub.

You can't even write an adult sentence; you get called on it, and you resort to foolish ad hominem.

I come across as I come across. I don't think many folks here share your insipid opinion.

See above for my placement of the Rev. Jackson's comments in their place and time.

As to your opinion of my intellect ... I actually think you're funny in your desperation.